I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a little while. While I am vehemntly opposed to all forms of government, it seems as though many of the arguments made by Austrians don't hold up. It is my hope that by posting on this forum, I can generate a discussion that solves or circumvents some of the below problems.
The Whole Point of Anarchy/Free Market: This is more a framework question than an objection. What grounds do we advocate the free market on? On general welfare? On the value of individual liberty? It seems as though valuing individual liberty (alone) is a losing argument. If I can save someone's life by violating a little bit of your liberty, I think I win my argument to do so.
General welfare is tricky too, because even though the free market does produce welfare, this does not mean that it is the BEST system for doing so. I think this is what free market advocates are saying. More on this later.
Defining Government:Again, framework problemIn the state of nature, supposedly we all kill eachother without government. True or false, this is a typical justification for why the state has a monopoly on legitimate physical force. Why not others?We don't like violence. However, we also don't like it when our spouses cheat. I know many people would rather lose a limb than lose their marriage. So it seems like there is a whole host of things, comparable to violence, that governments tend not to regulate at all. Doesn't this make them not "governments"? Since citizens can still mortally wound eachother (and in fact the state will protect my right to do so)?This thought has been feeding into my view that fundamentally, what political elites do is just enough to maintain their power, and the cheapest way to do so is through violence, since guns are so cheap and lives are so costly. I.e., that definitions for government never accurately categorize anything we call a government. Rather, a country is more accurately viewed as a system in which some people tell other people what to do, generally under threat of violence. But this view blends over to anarchist views, where coercion by violence (or otherwise) is still possible. For example, if i voluntarily join a club, and they threaten to kick me out if i don't pay membership dues, this is an example of coercion: "If you don't do X, i'll do Y to you"Perhaps the problem exists with a definition of coercion. Consider "If you don't pay me, I won't give you water" (A sale). Is it ever possible for this to not be to some extent coercive? You can argue that coercion has to be someone going out of their way to harm, but in the water example, the vendor has gone out of his way to horde water...... If these problems really exist, then the challenge to free market/anarchy advocates is to distinguish somehow between types of coercion in a way that separates the free market/anarchy from government.
Mises' Calculation Problem and Questions of Government Efficiency:Mises' calculation problem holds up on philosophical grounds, but there's no reason we can't fiat through it reasonably in some cases.
Example: Everyone needs at least X amount of water to live. If the government provides X amount of water to everyone (with the option to purchase more), then no one will go without water. The point of this plan is that it causes minimal harm, since everyone would be buying at least X water anyway. The benefit is that now some people who can't afford X water can now live, with a small cost imposed involuntarily on everyone else.
Objections might be raised on grounds that government is corrupt or inefficient, whatever. But these are really historical arguments from traditional models of government. Just because governments in the past have been corrupt and stupid does not mean that it is impossible to set up a government that will continue to be. Certainly, a group of cavemen would report themselves as better off if I came in and forced them to manufactur my blueprints for a clean water filter. It seems impossible to defeat the prospect of government, because we can always set up situations in which the (usually stupid) community is better off because of some regulation.
Some Challenges to Government:
While I have required again and again that we address government theoretically, it seems as though proponents of government cannot afford this. There are simply too many bad kinds of government that undermine their claims. For example, the assertion that "We should have government to stop violence" is only true if this is not one of those governments that superkilled millions of people. Whatever level of "bad" in the state of nature exists, it is possible to find or imagine a government that has done worse than this. So proponents of government actually have to find a model they're going to use.This does not exclude the possiblity of a utopian government however.However, in the argument of anarchy versus gov, our opponents only have to find something better than anarchy (it need not be the ultimate best form of gov). But we're still stuck with the burden of proving government as categorically illegit, something that seems insanely difficult given that the calculation problem is not always a problem, that government could be efficient, and that distinguishing between anarchy and government also proves difficult.
Help?
Professor_Blitzkrieg:But this view blends over to anarchist views, where coercion by violence (or otherwise) is still possible. For example, if i voluntarily join a club, and they threaten to kick me out if i don't pay membership dues, this is an example of coercion: "If you don't do X, i'll do Y to you"
No its not.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:But this view blends over to anarchist views, where coercion by violence (or otherwise) is still possible. For example, if i voluntarily join a club, and they threaten to kick me out if i don't pay membership dues, this is an example of coercion: "If you don't do X, i'll do Y to you"Perhaps the problem exists with a definition of coercion. Consider "If you don't pay me, I won't give you water" (A sale). Is it ever possible for this to not be to some extent coercive? You can argue that coercion has to be someone going out of their way to harm, but in the water example, the vendor has gone out of his way to horde water......
You think a positive incentive is coercion? You're obviously very confused.
This post seems strangely familiar. Let me guess, you didn't like the response you got last time so are trying again?
In libertarianism the initiation of violence is prohibited, and so is using the threat of violence, also known as coercion. Of course, while libertarianism may demand anarchism, one need not be a libertarian to support anarchism. David D. Friedman.
Peace
Professor_Blitzkrieg:If these problems really exist, then the challenge to free market/anarchy advocates is to distinguish somehow between types of coercion in a way that separates the free market/anarchy from government.
No it isn't. Anarchy as defined in Anarcho-Capitalism as the absence of coercion. You haven't established that coercion would exist under an anarcho-capitalist system as ethically viable.
In other words, you can't call a dog a cat, and and then claim that because it does not meow, it is no different than a dog.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:For example, if i voluntarily join a club, and they threaten to kick me out if i don't pay membership dues, this is an example of coercion: "If you don't do X, i'll do Y to you"
No it isn't. They have no obligation to accept your voluntary membership upon your terms. This would be an argument equivalent to saying "It is coercion if you make me leave your house after I enter uninvited through the front door".
Professor_Blitzkrieg:The point of this plan is that it causes minimal harm, since everyone would be buying at least X water anyway. The benefit is that now some people who can't afford X water can now live, with a small cost imposed involuntarily on everyone else.
I don't think you are familiar with Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen".
It doesn't matter if the cost is small or large. It is arrived at without market competition, and thus may not be a "real price" reflecting the maximum amount of efficiency possible. By paying too much (in resources, labour etc) for water for everyone, delivered by government fiat, you might be missing out on productive capacity that a more efficient water distribution system would have freed up elsewhere to increase prosperity through another good or service.
In the state of nature, supposedly we all kill eachother without government. True or false, this is a typical justification for why the state has a monopoly on legitimate physical force. Why not others?
Well its a poor argument, so it works in neither case. Hoppe wrote a good refutation.
http://mises.org/story/1356
"Briefly, Hobbes argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats. Homo homini lupus est. Each individual, left to his own devices and provisions, would spend too little on his own defense. Hence, permanent interpersonal warfare would result. The solution to this presumably intolerable situation, according to Hobbes and his followers, is the institution of a State (government). In order to institute peaceful cooperation—security—among themselves, two individuals, A and B, require a third independent party, S, as ultimate judge and peacemaker. However, this third party, S, is not just another individual, and the good provided by S, that of security, is not just another "private" good. Rather, S is a sovereign and has as such two unique powers. On the one hand, S can insist that his subjects, A and B, not seek protection from anyone but him; that is, S is a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and ultimate decision making (jurisdiction). On the other hand, S can determine unilaterally (without unanimous consent) how much A and B must spend on their own security; that is, S has the power to impose taxes in order to provide security "collectively."
Perhaps the problem exists with a definition of coercion. Consider "If you don't pay me, I won't give you water" (A sale). Is it ever possible for this to not be to some extent coercive? You can argue that coercion has to be someone going out of their way to harm, but in the water example, the vendor has gone out of his way to horde water......
Coercion is a violation of rights. Not giving someone water is not an act of coercion, unless you believe that people have a right to your water. Simlarly, kicking somone off your own property is not an act of coercion since they are not at liberty to be on your property (without your permission). That being said, coercion is still problematic. David Friedman wrote best piece on this issue:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
Natural rights arguments are generally weak and unconvincing; they proceed out of nothing at all or out of a supicious metaphysic. There are as many sets of natural rights as their are political philosophies and I see no way of adjucating between them.
I am generally committed to ultilitarian-type arguments. It would be absurd to say that libertarianism should be defended even if it does ill and socialism rejected even if it does good.
The point of this plan is that it causes minimal harm, since everyone would be buying at least X water anyway. The benefit is that now some people who can't afford X water can now live, with a small cost imposed involuntarily on everyone else.
Maybe the goverment can stipulate and reasonably provide for bare necessities. So can capitalism, through radically different means. Centralized planning, however, cannot [efficiently] provide higher-order (non-essential) goods. But the vast majority of goods demanded are higher-order goods.
Gene L.:I am generally committed to ultilitarian-type arguments. It would be absurd to say that libertarianism should be defended even if it does ill and socialism rejected even if it does good.
I don't like utilitarian arguments, because the notion of "good" and "bad" results are based upon subjective values when you get down to it.
One way or another, we're always arguing ethics and morality because utility (value) is subjective.
@JonBostwick and libertystudent
The idea that getting rid of government would somehow stop coercion is naive.You just kind of say that initiation of violence is prohibited by libertarianism, but you don't explain how. If you do, you'll probably be advocating a form of small government
Also you didn't realize my whole point of putting up the non violent examples of coercion, which you denied. I'm saying that violence isn't the only thing that can threaten people, therefore it doesn't make sense to single it out as coercion.Even if you do think that coercion still has to be defined in terms of violence, it is still possible to consider that a government might maintain its power through non-violent means. Which was my entire point.
So when I kick you out of the club, whether i have the "right" to, i'm still hurting you in some way, and therefore it is potentially a problem
@Gene L.
Regardless of all the problems i have with your definition of coercion, my main point was that actors can still influence one another (negatively) without violence and regardless of rights.
Point being, that violence isn't fundamentally a political issue, so how can we define government and/or anarchism around it?
Also, I am aware of the problems that most modern governments have with central planning, but this does not mean that all brands of central planning will fail. The point of the water example was to show that mises' calculation problem can't always work, and I think you realized that utilitarian arguments outweigh political theory (unless you consider utilitarianism a political theory)
Professor_Blitzkrieg: @JonBostwick and libertystudent The idea that getting rid of government would somehow stop coercion is naive.You just kind of say that initiation of violence is prohibited by libertarianism, but you don't explain how. If you do, you'll probably be advocating a form of small government
You're obviously very confused. (I think I've discovered a new mantra)
No one has said anything about "stopping" coercion, merely outlawing. No one, except those who run the state, thinks that making something illegal means that it never happens.
How would you prohibit the initiation of violence? By treating anyone who does as a criminal, and treating anyone who defends themselves against the criminal as within their rights.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:I'm saying that violence isn't the only thing that can threaten people, therefore it doesn't make sense to single it out as coercion.
Its not threatening that's illegal, its violence that's illegal, including the threat of it.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Even if you do think that coercion still has to be defined in terms of violence, it is still possible to consider that a government might maintain its power through non-violent means. Which was my entire point.
Then its not a government. Governments are defined as institutions that have a monopoly privilege to break the law, ie commit violence.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:So when I kick you out of the club, whether i have the "right" to, i'm still hurting you in some way, and therefore it is potentially a problem
Wrong. The club owners who kick you out are acting in self defense; as you have committed the initial aggression against their property by tresspassing.
liberty student: I don't like utilitarian arguments, because the notion of "good" and "bad" results are based upon subjective values when you get down to it. One way or another, we're always arguing ethics and morality because utility (value) is subjective.
You and I might have different extrinsic values. You might like Plasma TVs and I might like LCDs. But we both have the same intrinsic value. We both value happiness. We would not buy any goods unless they made us happier. Happiness is a subjective, universal utility. If capitalism maximizes human happiness, and happiness is a universal human value, then capitalism maximizes utility universally. Certainly there are some philosophers (e.g. Nozick) who argue that happiness is not an instrinsic value. I'll probably be too busy munching hamburgers in my capitalist utopia to read Nozick.
@All
Obviously I have a different conception of coercion than most of you, but it doesn't really matter.
My central problem is that, while we can raise great objections to specific historic and theoretical models for government, this does not mean that government itself is objectionable.
We also have problems defining government in a satisfactory way that sets it apart from anarchism, (unless we adopt the view that anarchism is defined as a happy place with no violence)Even if we did accept that view, i think it is still possible for the government to use non-violent means to persuade everyone to fall in line. My tentative conclusion is that there is no fundamental difference between government and anarchy. Rather its just a fuzzy term disguising the fact that modern populations are ruled by a small group of extortionist elites, and has no academic merit. Thus, political problems are fundamentally practical ones, which allows us to begin arguing on utilitarian grounds.
No one claims that capitalism is the solution to all human ills - that it will satisfy all whims at all times. That claim is unique to socialism. An imperfect reality proscribes perfect happiness. We must thrive under scarcity and a free-market provides the most favorable distribution of scarce resources.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:My tentative conclusion is that there is no fundamental difference between government and anarchy.
You're obviously very confused.
Perhaps you are using your own personal version of the English language where antonyms have become synonyms?
Prof_Blitz, I think you're relatively new to these arguments and we may have assumed a greater understanding of libertarian principles when you started this discussion.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:The idea that getting rid of government would somehow stop coercion is naive.
Government by definition is coercive. So keeping government doesn't get rid of coercion either.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:You just kind of say that initiation of violence is prohibited by libertarianism, but you don't explain how. If you do, you'll probably be advocating a form of small government
This is a lack of knowledge on your part. At a minimum, if you want to discuss libertarianism and coercion, you should have a grasp on the non-aggression principle.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:I'm saying that violence isn't the only thing that can threaten people, therefore it doesn't make sense to single it out as coercion. Even if you do think that coercion still has to be defined in terms of violence, it is still possible to consider that a government might maintain its power through non-violent means. Which was my entire point.
Even if you do think that coercion still has to be defined in terms of violence, it is still possible to consider that a government might maintain its power through non-violent means. Which was my entire point.
Your definition is wanting.
It's not a problem. You cannot place a positive burden on others to never hurt your feelings. The only person who controls your feelings is you. I could let you in the club, and then you demand to be President, or to spend all of the treasury. If I deny you that position or those funds, and your feelings get hurt, have I wronged you?
What you are proposing is irrational. I suggest you watch all 3 parts of this video to better understand rational individualism.
Ayn Rand - Mike Wallace Interview
Gene L.:You and I might have different extrinsic values. You might like Plasma TVs and I might like LCDs. But we both have the same intrinsic value. We both value happiness. We would not buy any goods unless they made us happier. Happiness is a subjective, universal utility. If capitalism maximizes human happiness, and happiness is a universal human value, then capitalism maximizes utility universally. Certainly there are some philosophers (e.g. Nozick) who argue that happiness is not an instrinsic value. I'll probably be too busy munching hamburgers in my capitalist utopia to read Nozick.
Elegant wordplay Gene, although it comes up short.
Utility is defined by the subjective theory of value. There is no universal definition of happiness. It is different for each actor, at any given time. In fact, I cringe whenever someone uses an absolute like "universal" in conjunction with the word "subjective".
Happiness is a subjective, universal utility.
This is why utilitarian arguments are ALWAYS moral and ethical arguments, based upon the values of the individuals having the argument.
@ Liberty studentI'm not actually advocating government, you know.Furthermore, I think you're missing my point with the coercion talk. If you want to have a different, formalist definition of coercion, that's fine. What i'm saying is that there are still problems that arise from human interaction whether you call them coercive or not. The non-aggression principle doesn't matter. If I own all the water, and I choose not to give you any. I'm hurting you way worse than I would if I punched you. Furthermore, getting kicked out of the club IS a problem, but what you mean is that it is not a political problem as far as libertarian politics is concerned. If you deny my position as president of the club, there's still a conflict between our interests and in libertarian world it gets resolved in the property owner's favor. But this eliminates any real ethical dimensions human problems might have, which is why I don't use any formalist conceptions like the non-aggression principle.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:The non-aggression principle doesn't matter.
If you are going to talk about libertarianism, it is the fundamental guiding principle. So yes, it does matter.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:If I own all the water, and I choose not to give you any. I'm hurting you way worse than I would if I punched you.
It is impossible for you to own all of the water. Ayn Rand explains that in the videos I posted. Seriously, please get up to speed and then come back. This thread belongs in Newbies, not Political Theory.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Furthermore, getting kicked out of the club IS a problem, but what you mean is that it is not a political problem as far as libertarian politics is concerned.
If I own the club, do I not have a right to define the membership requirements? Or do you have a right to join any club you want, whether you meet the requirements or not, whether you have been invited or not?
Your example is wholly incoherent and irrational.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:If you deny my position as president of the club, there's still a conflict between our interests and in libertarian world it gets resolved in the property owner's favor.
Yes, you cannot force your way into my club, and then demand you are President. I think that is rational. You claim it will hurt your feelings if you don't get your way. Perhaps you should demand my home and family too. I will have to give it up, otherwise you will feel bad, and that is a problem...
liberty student: Gene L.:I am generally committed to ultilitarian-type arguments. It would be absurd to say that libertarianism should be defended even if it does ill and socialism rejected even if it does good. I don't like utilitarian arguments, because the notion of "good" and "bad" results are based upon subjective values when you get down to it. One way or another, we're always arguing ethics and morality because utility (value) is subjective.
that's what preference utilitarianism is for. OTOH you shouldn't compromise your values with baby eaters
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/the-babyeating-aliens.html
@ Liberty Student
Yeah I know I can't own all the water :( But its still possible for me to own something you need, and deny it to you. Which was my whole point, that there's a moral dimension to property rights that libertarianism ignores.
The club example is similar to the water example, in that even though libertarian rights let you do what you want, your actions can still have impact on me that I consider negative.
My main point is that libertarian rights can cause property owners to have leverage over others. Thus, what is the fundamental difference between a government actor and a private citizen if both can cause me harm for not doing X?
It doesn't matter if the harm is passive, since you can still control me under threat of (non)action.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:actions can still have impact on me that I consider negative.
such actions are entirely legitimate, since they dont consitute coercion/use of force. they are not a breach of rights. it is a bizarre claim that someone who has no obligations to stop X happening is neglible for X having happened.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:My main point is that libertarian rights can cause property owners to have leverage over others.
the peculiar kind of leverage you cite is no different than 'leverage' which mindless objects could exert. this should illustrate that this leverage is outside the bounds of the morality game, since we dont morally indict rocks for avalanching and killing people .
Professor_Blitzkrieg:It doesn't matter if the harm is passive, since you can still control me under threat of (non)action.
this is not true.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
@nirgrahamUK I want to get away from considering specific brands of rights. It's still an ethical problem if you harm me, even "legitimately" within your "rights". And you're right that leverage is in itself is amoral, but the consequences of leverage aren't. It should be obvious that if you take embarrassing photos of me, you own them and you can blackmail me.
The point is to put passive rights that libertarians tend to defend on the same moral plain as coercive and violent acts which they usually condemn. Limiting political discussions to concepts like property rights and physical coercion ignores that political philosophy only considers those things because well-being is at stake. It follows that if my well-being is threatened by property rights, then political philosophy has to address them in the same way it does coercion.
Thus the question is how you define government in a distinct, meaningful way.
You shouldn't cringe. There is nothing incomprehensible about a "universal subjective value". Happiness is one such value (and the only one, in fact).
There is no universal definition of happiness. It is different for each actor, at any given time.
I'm not sure if the second statement is supposed to restate the first or if you mean to suggest that it is implied by the first. They mean different things. Neither implies the other. And neither imply that utilitarianism is false.
(1) There is no universal definition of happiness.
Ok, but utilitarianism is not a theory about definitions or words and it isn't affected by facts about what definitions are or aren't. The word might not have existed at all and utilitarianism would still be true.
(2) It is different for each actor, at any given time.
So you are saying that one thing, happiness, is experienced differently at different times by different people. That means you believe that one feeling can be shared even though it is felt differently by each person. Hot pans are painful for both of us even though they entail different, subjective perceptions. Sex is pleasurable even though we experience it differently. Goods make us happy even though we do not enjoy them the same way. Though we have different pyschological experiences, the same feelings are nontheless brought about. "Happiness" might describe a feeling that is manifested in an infinite number of ways and is unique in each person (just as pain is), but it is nonetheless the feeling that is the intrinsic, universal end to all voluntary human action, just as pain is the universal end to the handling of all hot pans (joking).
It makes sense to ask, "Why buy a Plasma?" or "Why have sex?"... but it makes no sense to ask, "Why be happy?"
Well I don't really have to get involved in philosophy here. I can convince you that you should endorse capitalism on utilitarian grounds without convincing you that philosophical utilitarianism is true. All I need to do is (1) establish that you want to maximize happiness in the world and (2) prove to you that free markets maximize happiness and that (3) endorsing capitalism will make it more likely. From this it follows that: if you want to maximize happiness then you should endorse capitalism. This is a utilitarian-like argument that is essentially no more philosophical than a doctor's prescription.
Professor_Blitzkrieg: It's still an ethical problem if you harm me, even "legitimately" within your "rights".
no its not still an ethical problem, its maybe an aesthetic problem if its any kind of problem
Professor_Blitzkrieg:And you're right that leverage is in itself is amoral, but the consequences of leverage aren't. It should be obvious that if you take embarrassing photos of me, you own them and you can blackmail me.
and whilst this may or may not be 'nice'; it is legitimate.
it is morally permissable behaviour.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:The point is to put passive rights that libertarians tend to defend on the same moral plain as coercive and violent acts which they usually condemn.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Limiting political discussions to concepts like property rights and physical coercion ignores that political philosophy only considers those things because well-being is at stake.
its limited to property rights and physical coercion because thats all that morality concerns. if your 'political philosophy' considers other things, then its added in extra-moral features. and if it ever puts those features ahead of the moral ones, its likely immoral.
Professor_Blitzkrieg: It follows that if my well-being is threatened by property rights, then political philosophy has to address them in the same way it does coercion.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Thus the question is how you define government in a distinct, meaningful way.
a territorial monopoly of violence
Professor_Blitzkrieg:But its still possible for me to own something you need, and deny it to you.
No it isn't. There is nothing that anyone needs that is in such short supply that one person can control it.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:The club example is similar to the water example, in that even though libertarian rights let you do what you want, your actions can still have impact on me that I consider negative.
I can't do what I want. I can only perform voluntarily. If I own the property, then I can use it how I wish. You do not own it, and thus do not have a say in how it is used. Even if that makes you feel bad. Unless you want to argue that private ownership of property does not exist.
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Which was my whole point, that there's a moral dimension to property rights that libertarianism ignores.
Libertarianism is based on "do no harm". You have arbitrarily created a positive notion of what harm is.
If you wake up, and feel bad, that is a problem according to you.
If you go to your job, and it's not fun, that is a problem according to you.
If you are single, and no one loves you, that is a problem according to you.
These are backwards arguments. Your premise leads to arguments like "if there is only one woman around, and she won't satisfy your sexual urges, then she is negatively impacting you".
Your programming is too deep and without a capacity for rational argument, we're both just wasting time.
nirgrahamUK: Professor_Blitzkrieg:And you're right that leverage is in itself is amoral, but the consequences of leverage aren't. It should be obvious that if you take embarrassing photos of me, you own them and you can blackmail me. and whilst this may or may not be 'nice'; it is legitimate. it is morally permissable behaviour.
Blackmail is still an initiation of force. Like libel, slander, character assassination. etc; it still causes harm to a person and violates their right of privacy.
The video where I got this (skip to 6:30 in video) --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hf-9fM71i8 ("Q&A #2 Part 1" by Shane Killian)
none of the negative terms you qouted are initiations of force and none of them are morally impermissable behaviours.
lets focus on blackmail.
you say its initiation of force. what physical property is invaded/vandalased/damaged or destroyed when I give you a choice to pay me to keep my photos of you secret, or, not pay me and my then distributing my pictures ?
Professor_Blitzkrieg:What grounds do we advocate the free market on? On general welfare? On the value of individual liberty?
Both, individual liberty is more beneficial to the general welfare than not having liberty at all (I speak for I not We)
Professor_Blitzkrieg:In the state of nature, supposedly we all kill eachother without government. True or false, this is a typical justification for why the state has a monopoly on legitimate physical force. Why not others?
This is also the excuse (NOT JUSTIFICATION) of the use of force by the mob, because other random criminals wil victimize you if you do not pay protection, why does it sound like a crime when I use "mob" and not when I use "government"?
Professor_Blitzkrieg:I.e., that definitions for government never accurately categorize anything we call a government. Rather, a country is more accurately viewed as a system in which some people tell other people what to do, generally under threat of violence.
This is incorrect, a government is a system in which some people tell other people what to do, generally under threat of violence, a country is just a land mass...
Professor_Blitzkrieg:if i voluntarily join a club, and they threaten to kick me out if i don't pay membership dues, this is an example of coercion: "If you don't do X, i'll do Y to you"
You have no individual right to be in the specific club, therefore it is voluntary that you pay membership and the consequence of not is removal from the club...
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Perhaps the problem exists with a definition of coercion. Consider "If you don't pay me, I won't give you water" (A sale). Is it ever possible for this to not be to some extent coercive? You can argue that coercion has to be someone going out of their way to harm, but in the water example, the vendor has gone out of his way to horde water...
Coercion is forced compliance to rights violation, usually by means of rights violations
Example : Your money or your life is coercion
Professor_Blitzkrieg:Example: Everyone needs at least X amount of water to live. If the government provides X amount of water to everyone (with the option to purchase more), then no one will go without water.
Needs are not rights
Professor_Blitzkrieg:It seems impossible to defeat the prospect of government, because we can always set up situations in which the (usually stupid) community is better off because of some regulation.
The issue is moral, that regulation is a rights violation on someone, stabbing your right eye to make your left eye see better makes as much sense...
Professor_Blitzkrieg:However, in the argument of anarchy versus gov, our opponents only have to find something better than anarchy (it need not be the ultimate best form of gov). But we're still stuck with the burden of proving government as categorically illegit, something that seems insanely difficult given that the calculation problem is not always a problem, that government could be efficient, and that distinguishing between anarchy and government also proves difficult.
Tell them to prove the government had issued a contract to every citizen, that each citizen read and agreed to the terms by signature, then delivered the contract to the government, that is the ONLY way government can have legitimacy...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Blitzkrieg, everything you say is against private property rights. When you ask if government is categorically illegit, what you are really asking is if violating private property rights doesn't lead to better consequences for the community. Of course, government is ALWAYS illegit, because it is a coercive monopoly on the use of force, and given that, on almost everything else. Therefore, is another social class. What you are questioning is if we should really enforce private property rights (as we, libertarians, conclude) or if we should adopt another political system, which avoids certain people from being "coerced" by this property-enforcement policies. Again, it's all about property rights. I believe, that the only satisfactory way to get rid of this questions is not by proposing any type of government whatsoever, but to define the concept of property. You may go to any branch of anarcho-socialism (that is, no private property rights, "economic egalitarianism", direct democracy, cooperatives), and its bad consequences (limited individual liberty, property/possession problems, the "mob rule", economic calculation/planning).
Gene L.: Coercion is a violation of rights. Not giving someone water is not an act of coercion, unless you believe that people have a right to your water. Simlarly, kicking somone off your own property is not an act of coercion since they are not at liberty to be on your property (without your permission). That being said, coercion is still problematic. David Friedman wrote best piece on this issue: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html Natural rights arguments are generally weak and unconvincing; they proceed out of nothing at all or out of a supicious metaphysic. There are as many sets of natural rights as their are political philosophies and I see no way of adjucating between them.
That David Friedman's article is a nice reductio ad absurdum-style refutation attempt of natural rights. Hoppe has a word on that, it's the chronological concept of property. Taking Friedman's example, the airplane pilot would have to get the permission of all the inhabitants of the houses below his route, if he established his route after the inhabitants started residing there.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Another, equally common misunderstanding of the idea of private property concerns the classification of actions as permissible or impermissible based exclusively on their physical effects, i.e., without taking into account that every property right has a history (temporal genesis). If A currently physically damages the property of B (for example by air pollution or noise), the situation must be judged differently depending on whose property right was established earlier. If A's property was founded first, and if he had performed the questionable activities before the neighboring property of B was founded, then A may continue with his activities. A has established an easement. From the outset, B had acquired dirty or loud property, and if B wants to have his property clean and quiet he must pay A for this advantage. Conversely, if B's property was founded first, then A must stop his activities; and if he does not want to do this, he must pay B for this advantage. Any other ruling is impossible and indefensible because as long as a person is alive and awake, he cannot not act. An early-comer cannot, even if he wished otherwise, wait for a late-comer and his agreement before he begins acting. He must be permitted to act immediately. And if no other property besides one's own exists (because a late-comer has not yet arrived), then one's range of action can be deemed limited only by laws of nature. A late-comer can only challenge the legitimacy of an early-comer if he is the owner of the goods affected by the early-comer's actions. However, this implies that one can be the owner of un-appropriated things; i.e., that one can be the owner of things one has not yet discovered or appropriated through physical action. This means that no one is permitted [to] become the first user of a previously undiscovered and unappropriated physical entity.
Another, equally common misunderstanding of the idea of private property concerns the classification of actions as permissible or impermissible based exclusively on their physical effects, i.e., without taking into account that every property right has a history (temporal genesis).
If A currently physically damages the property of B (for example by air pollution or noise), the situation must be judged differently depending on whose property right was established earlier. If A's property was founded first, and if he had performed the questionable activities before the neighboring property of B was founded, then A may continue with his activities. A has established an easement. From the outset, B had acquired dirty or loud property, and if B wants to have his property clean and quiet he must pay A for this advantage. Conversely, if B's property was founded first, then A must stop his activities; and if he does not want to do this, he must pay B for this advantage. Any other ruling is impossible and indefensible because as long as a person is alive and awake, he cannot not act. An early-comer cannot, even if he wished otherwise, wait for a late-comer and his agreement before he begins acting. He must be permitted to act immediately. And if no other property besides one's own exists (because a late-comer has not yet arrived), then one's range of action can be deemed limited only by laws of nature. A late-comer can only challenge the legitimacy of an early-comer if he is the owner of the goods affected by the early-comer's actions. However, this implies that one can be the owner of un-appropriated things; i.e., that one can be the owner of things one has not yet discovered or appropriated through physical action. This means that no one is permitted [to] become the first user of a previously undiscovered and unappropriated physical entity.
ivanfoofoo:That David Friedman's article is a nice reductio ad absurdum-style refutation attempt of natural rights. Hoppe was a word on that, it's the chronological concept of property. Taking Friedman's example, the airplane pilot would have to get the permission of all the inhabitants of the houses below his route, if he established his route after the inhabitants started residing there.
No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property.
Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property.
The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it.
malgratloprekindle:Blackmail is still an initiation of force. Like libel, slander, character assassination. etc; it still causes harm to a person and violates their right of privacy.
Blackmail is not an initiation of force.
First, theres no force at all. Spreading information is a social action, not an anti-social action.
Second, people don't have the right to not be talked about. And "harming" a person's reputation does not harm their person, nor does it harm anything they own. Your reputation is nothing more than what other people think of you. You don't own your reputation because you don't own other people's thoughts.
JonBostwick: malgratloprekindle:Blackmail is still an initiation of force. Like libel, slander, character assassination. etc; it still causes harm to a person and violates their right of privacy. ... Your reputation is nothing more than what other people think of you. You don't own your reputation because you don't own other people's thoughts.
... Your reputation is nothing more than what other people think of you. You don't own your reputation because you don't own other people's thoughts.
This. Walter Block pointed this out in his Defending the Undefendable.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
JonBostwick: ivanfoofoo:That David Friedman's article is a nice reductio ad absurdum-style refutation attempt of natural rights. Hoppe was a word on that, it's the chronological concept of property. Taking Friedman's example, the airplane pilot would have to get the permission of all the inhabitants of the houses below his route, if he established his route after the inhabitants started residing there. No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property. Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property. The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it.
Rothbard gives an example somewhere of an airport homesteading a certain amount, say 50 dB, of "noise generation easement rights" over an area of previously unowned land. Those who build a neighborhood within this soundscape are required to allow the overhead airplane traffic. If the airport grows to where it starts emitting 75 dB of noise over this neighborhood, the emission of this additional 25 dB of noise pollution would be considered an act of aggression. Terminology like "working the land" are clearly outmoded when trying to get a grasp on a proper approach to determining property rights in our modern era. Likewise, the ancient common law approach of cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos, or "for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell", isn't compatible with a rational approach to arbitration of property rights today. Just saying one way or another that the landholder has a say in the airplane travel is insufficient.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
JonBostwick: [ No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property. Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property. The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it.
[
Nor did I ever suggest that it did. My argument had nothing to do with trespass.
I gather you haven't read the chapter you are criticizing.
There is no morality to utilitarianism. To quote the old idiom 'greatest good for the greatest amount'. I really don't see utilitarianism as proposing anything beyond the arbitary majority of an given issue.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student: Professor_Blitzkrieg:If I own all the water, and I choose not to give you any. I'm hurting you way worse than I would if I punched you.
Isn't this a Nozickian criticque which Rothbard famously coined 'Drop dead' argument?
I just posted on a similar issue. At first I seemed sorry I didn't search the forums further (though 2 days ago I couldn't find a suitable answer), but my approach is different.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8377.aspx
David Friedman: JonBostwick: [ No, the pilot would not need permission. A lack of chronology isn't the only defect in Friedman's theory of property. Traveling over a person's property is not traveling through a person's property. A pilot no more needs permission to travel over property than a driver needs permission to travel next to property. The sky is a seperate unit of property from land. A land homestead does not include the sky above it. Nor did I ever suggest that it did. My argument had nothing to do with trespass. I gather you haven't read the chapter you are criticizing.
Nice to see you here! I enjoyed your pieces in Anarchy and the Law.
I have actually read it.
If I recall correctly, your point was that flying over a certain area created a risk of falling out of the sky. If a person is entitled to prevent a gun from being pointed at them due to the risk of property invasion then they are also entitled to prevent planes from flying over for the same reason. You were attempting to a show defect in the natural rights theory of property.
I expanded that analogy by including a car driving next to the property. There is also a risk that the car could drive off the road and into the property.
True, a property owner can respond to any action that involves risk of damage to property, but another important aspect of natural rights theory of property is proportionality. The property owner is limited to actions that are in proportion with the actual threat. In the case of an airplane or car traveling near their property, that risk approaches zero.
If for some reason the risk is higher, you live near an overpass that cars are known to drive off perhaps, you can sue the road owner to "make safe" the road.
I'd love to discuss your rifle stealing self defense scenario with you, if you have the time. I think you would enjoy the Libertarian solution.
I just don't get the utilitarian argument of the rifle stealing defense scenario. I think that stealing is ALWAYS bad, it just doesn't matter what consequences it has. If you ask what would I do in that scenario, I'd steal the gun, and shoot the maniac, and then accept the consequences anyway. If the victim (the guy who I stole the gun from) is a rational guy, he won't sue me.
ivanfoofoo: I just don't get the utilitarian argument of the rifle stealing defense scenario. I think that stealing is ALWAYS bad, it just doesn't matter what consequences it has. If you ask what would I do in that scenario, I'd steal the gun, and shoot the maniac, and then accept the consequences anyway. If the victim (the guy who I stole the gun from) is a rational guy, he won't sue me.
Hey, no fair poisoning the well before Mr Friedman even replies.
Or in other words, you think it is morally right to violate rights under those circumstances? If not, why would you do it?
Your "accept the consequences" suggests to me that you think it's all right to take someone else's property as long as you are willing to pay a fine for doing so. Do you approve of the same principle in the context of eminent domain? The government takes your property and then pays you what purports to be a fair price for it. Is the only think wrong that they may pay less than the land is actually worth?