Marko:Hadn't you styled yourself a 'Rockwellian' last year? Changed your mind since, or?
Indeed.
JackCuyler:Sounds like the current situation all over the world. The state is nothing but a NAP-ignoring firm that competes with other firms.
That's pretty much how I see it.
wilderness: indeed. this is why i think governments are simply rogue PDA's or what have you. They raid the current free market which is the only market that exists. The degree of violence coerced into the market can be also an explanation of the kinds of economic systems being applied, which most are centrally applied currently. North Korea, heavy coercion upon the market. Iran with their gold-backed, non-fiat money (?) reserves thereby a little lighter impact on the market. Black markets are still impacted by governments currently but maybe only by fear, an increased fear differing from an unsophisticated, common criminal. Maybe Somalia has as near a market uncoerced by governments as it currently gets, though governments, including the U.S., are presently there applying their physical aggression.
indeed. this is why i think governments are simply rogue PDA's or what have you. They raid the current free market which is the only market that exists. The degree of violence coerced into the market can be also an explanation of the kinds of economic systems being applied, which most are centrally applied currently.
North Korea, heavy coercion upon the market. Iran with their gold-backed, non-fiat money (?) reserves thereby a little lighter impact on the market. Black markets are still impacted by governments currently but maybe only by fear, an increased fear differing from an unsophisticated, common criminal. Maybe Somalia has as near a market uncoerced by governments as it currently gets, though governments, including the U.S., are presently there applying their physical aggression.
Agreed.
Too bad, I thought there was potential in that label.
Marko: Too bad, I thought there was potential in that label.
Lew Rockwell is a brave man, but I am more and more turned off on political libertarianism, and all politics. And unfortunately, Lew's site where most of his commentary resides, while anti-state, is a lot more about the state, and a lot less about the market. I need some more positivity in my life, and that means working for markets, instead of working against the state. YMMV.
Don't care much for the market. It's just a side product of freedom. No other path to freedom but to gnaw on the chains.
Marko:Don't care much for the market. It's just a side product of freedom.
The market is freedom. They are the same thing.
liberty student:The market is freedom. They are the same thing.
Robinson Crusoe had complete freedom but there was no market that he had access to - at least not till the arrival of Friday.
I know that the above isn't a particularly powerful argument, but it's correct. Freedom and the market aren't necessarily one and the same. The above focuses on the lack of markets when there is complete personal freedom. Markets, on the other hand, can limit personal freedom - e.g. markets in sex slaves, stolen goods, etc. But, then again, I'm using the strict Econ 101 definition of "markets."
In any case, I'm neither for markets or freedom as much as I am for the good or for what is right. Non-aggression and basic human rights are a large portion of what constitutes the good. A polycentric legal order is the best way to refine the concept of the good.
Political Atheists Blog
Zavoi:What is "the elimination of the current monopolies on force," if not the bringing about of a state of affairs where people are able to compete without hindrance? And isn't this ability just what we mean by a "de facto right to compete"?
Depends on who's doing the advocating. If they choose to throw that in there as part of their reasons or intentions for advocating anti-monopoly, then yes. But if not, then no. Simply advocating an action to be taken, unless that action specifically calls for some enforcement to be enacted, isn't advocating any rights.
Why anarchy fails
krazy kaju: Robinson Crusoe had complete freedom but there was no market that he had access to - at least not till the arrival of Friday. I know that the above isn't a particularly powerful argument, but it's correct.
I know that the above isn't a particularly powerful argument, but it's correct.
You're right, it isn't a powerful argument. Obviously I am talking about freedom in the context of social relationships.
liberty student: You're right, it isn't a powerful argument. Obviously I am talking about freedom in the context of social relationships.
Since you were only talking about freedom in reply to my mentioning of the term, it matters in what context was I talking, not you.
Obviously you can be free, jet not take part in the market. Kaju provided one such example.
At the very least taking part in the market requires action on ones part where being free does not.
"Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.[7] But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones's court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well. The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.[9] The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services." - Society without a State by MNR
[7] E.g., David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom (New York: Harper and Row, 1973).
For an elaboration of these points, see Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1973).
[9] Thus, see Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961).
AJ:Well, for what value of X would you choose B over A? A. No monopolies on force ever again B. X% of the world's population shares your ethical positions
A. No monopolies on force ever again
B. X% of the world's population shares your ethical positions
The question doesn't make sense. Opposing monopolies on force is one of my ethical positions.
Murray Rothbard:But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression.
I think the most charitable way to interpret Rothbard here is making the predictive claim that if a society is to remain libertarian, then universal agreement on the basic legal code is necessary.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage: AJ:Well, for what value of X would you choose B over A? A. No monopolies on force ever again B. X% of the world's population shares your ethical positions The question doesn't make sense. Opposing monopolies on force is one of my ethical positions.
Right, but modifying the scope of the question to exclude that particular ethical position does nothing to diminish what I am getting at, so I will ask again.
For what value of X would you choose B over A?
B. X% of the world's population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force
Again, the question is incoherent. Can you just get to your point?
AJ: For what value of X would you choose B over A? A. No monopolies on force ever again B. X% of the world's population shares all your ethical positions besides opposing monopolies on force
there is no such X ?
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
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: By the way, libertarians don't oppose 'monopolies on force'. Libertarians oppose the not-morally-justified use of force. Monopolistic government is just ONE example of the illegitimate use of force.
Indeed, theoretically a monopoly on force could arise voluntarily on the market and be fully libertarian.
theoretically a monopoly on force could arise voluntarily
Juan: A monopoly is a legal privilege. By definition it is NOT VOLUNTARY. Sheesh...
Sounds like somebody hasn't read much Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (among others). No such thing as a natural monopoly? That's a new one.
The second sentence explains the first quite nicely.
Everybody is a monopoly in a free market. No two people can provide the exact same service. So monopoly in a free market is a meaningless concept.
There is monopoly price, but it's a purely mental exercise in economic price theory.
DD5:Everybody is a monopoly in a free market.
Yes. Every person, every good and service, and every individual action is a monopoly (differentiated) in a free market. No two are the same.
Juan: Exactly. Angurse might like to wipe the egg off his face, though I somehow suspect he'll never admit his face is covered with egg.
You've gone from no monopoly to some six billion monopolies and I have the egg on my face? Too funny...
Juan:You are equivocating monopoly in economics with monopoly in violence.
Defense falls well within the world of economics. A theoretical monopoly on it is hardly equivocation.
Juan: And you don't even understand that monopoly in economics is a meaningless concept as DD5 pointed out. You fail, miserably.
Of course, that explains:
"No, no such thing as a 'natural' monopoly. Sounds like some people don't know the ABC of economics."
Egg.
Juan: b) the existence in a free market of a sole provider of a given good/service/whatever because this provider has outcompeted all the rest - which in practice is very hard to do if not impossible.
So when I say theoretically you jump to definition a why? As definition b - which you seem to be aware of - fits perfectly with what I said.
Yes it does, remember b?
b) the existence in a free market of a sole provider of a given good/service/whatever because this provider has outcompeted all the rest - which in practice is very hard to do if not impossible.
Force obviously constitutes a good/service/whatever
Monopoly on force:
b) the existence in a free market of a sole provider of force because this provider has outcompeted all the rest - which is theoretically possible.
Juan: Every human can use force legitimately in self-defense. It is impossible for a monopoly on legitimate force to exist. So b) is not applicable.
You are equivocating, quite pathetically at this point. Read through any basic libertarian literature, many have explained how PDA's could be created and maintained. Everyone could theoretically subscribe to the same one. At which point...
Juan: AND you keep on confusing moral issues such as the LEGITIMATE use of force with economics.
Confusing? I've merely agreed with your point about out how libertarianism isn't against monopolies per se. You seem determined not to follow through with it.
Juan:No, you are wrong. Every human can use force legitimately in self-defense. It is impossible for a monopoly on legitimate force to exist. So b) is not applicable. AND you keep on confusing moral issues such as the LEGITIMATE use of force with economics.
There is a difference between:
and
If such a monopoly provider follows libertarian law (rising to its status as natural elite), I don't see the issue. The existence of such a provider would necessarily allow for competition. So, I agree that it is theoretically possible. The nature of the service and its level of importance make me not suspect to see one exist for a long time, even after a free society is firmly established.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
If such a monopoly provider follows libertarian law (rising to its status as natural elite), I don't see the issue.
Read through any basic libertarian literature, many have explained how PDA's could be created and maintained.
I've merely agreed with your point about out how libertarianism isn't against monopolies per se.
Juan:If such a monopoly provider follows libertarian law (rising to its status as natural elite), I don't see the issue. That monopoly provider CAN'T exist unless EVERY SINGLE HUMAN is a voluntary client of the monopoly. And that's practically impossible. In a free society you are FREE to defend yourself if you want to. You RETAIN your right/ability for self-defense, so there's NO sole provider of defense. natural elites : spare me the nonsense.
Again, I am talking about provision of a service versus the type of claims that states make over those who they rule. I don't understand how you fail to see the difference I pointed out above. Also, I don't see why the use of the word monopoly has to mean 100% market share, or we have to be talking about every single human being. I was in part agreeing with you, that people retain the right to provide their own defense even if (and as I said, I think it is unlikely), a natural monopoly for security came about.
I don't see what your problem is with the undeniable existence of natural elites. This is off topic anyhow, and I will just stop responding to you before I press the "positivist" or "amoralist" button.
Juan:That monopoly provider CAN'T exist unless EVERY SINGLE HUMAN is a voluntary client of the monopoly. And that's practically impossible. In a free society you are FREE to defend yourself if you want to. You RETAIN your right/ability for self-defense, so there's NO sole provider of defense.
That's the entire point! Practically impossible sure, yet still theoretically possible. You are agreeing with me.
(Your tangent about being physically able to defend yourself doesn't detract from the above scenario anymore than it does with the state.)