That wasn't my point. Take for example a rapist and a victim. Rapist demands "either you submit or I will kill you". Can this "voluntary exchange" be called mutual beneficial? Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn't use coercion.
Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn't use coercion.
The bolding is mine.
That bolded text makes VERY big difference. On one hand, one person is going to make another's situation worse regardless of what is chosen. On the other hand, a person will help another person, or leave that other person exactly as he was found, neither better nor worse.
I can hurt you or hurt you.
I can help you or leave you alone.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
If lady required all his money, then that would be "taking advantage". In this case, the pure human compassion should be enough to help the dying billionaire. Any requirement of money is unethical. Unless billionaire himself offers her a million.
Even though the lad is risking his life?
JackCuyler: That wasn't my point. Take for example a rapist and a victim. Rapist demands "either you submit or I will kill you". Can this "voluntary exchange" be called mutual beneficial? Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn't use coercion. The bolding is mine. That bolded text makes VERY big difference. On one hand, one person is going to make another's situation worse regardless of what is chosen. On the other hand, a person will help another person, or leave that other person exactly as he was found, neither better nor worse. I can hurt you or hurt you. I can help you or leave you alone.
and that's why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist. Just because A doesn't use coercion doesn't mean he isn't exploiting B. A knows very well, that B won't refuse to his offer, because he can die if he refuses to suck his dick.
Just fyi, I don't believe there is some moral obligation, but there is an ethical one.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
JackCuyler: If lady required all his money, then that would be "taking advantage". In this case, the pure human compassion should be enough to help the dying billionaire. Any requirement of money is unethical. Unless billionaire himself offers her a million. Even though the lad is risking his life?
if he really thinks he is risking HIS life, then nope (his or her? Lad = lady?). But I see what you are trying to do. One has to evaluate "risk factor" before taking some extreme action. (sorry my english here). If there is a real risk that A can drown himself, then yes, refusing to help B wouldn't be unethical or immoral. But if he demands "oral sex" or any other extreme service, then it is clear enough that he is just playing with a victim.
Same would be if lad asked to suck her ass for a bottle of water. It's exploitation.
MaikU:and that's why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist.
So then what do you base your anarcho-capitalism on?
MaikU,
Sorry for the gender confusion. Lad is a slang term for boy or young man, The female equivelent would be "lass". Also laddie and lassie. Anyhow...
In my desert story, I thought I was clear that the young man was risking his life by giving up the water. That was my point: The billionaire obviously benefitted from the exchange, but there was a very real risk to the young man. A million dollars for a bottle of water is not always a simple example of pure greed.
But if he demands "oral sex" or any other extreme service, then it is clear enough that he is just playing with a victim.
So you, a third party, gets to determine this?
Can you not see the difference between being a person causing someone harm, and nature causing someone harm?
Rape is one person harming another. The rapist offers a choice, sure, but it is a choice of the rapist hurting the victim in one manner, or the rapist hurting the victim in another manner.
Our drowning person, in this example, at least, is a victim of nature. The horny guy walking by also offers a choice: I will do something nice for you if you do somethig nice for me, or I can just leave you alone.
MaikU:That's what I am talking about. Death is not an option. :) it is not a choice, unless it is voluntary suicide. In this case only lunatic would say that drowning person commited suicide because he didn't want to suck A's dick.
Technically, B is not choosing death. He's choosing to refuse A's help. How is he obligated to accept it?
MaikU:Being forced to choose between two extremes is never a mutual choice. It can be "voluntary" and even moral according to NAP, but not mutual or ethical. Do you think a woman has a "choice" when rapist asks her "you want oral or anal sex"? No.
A didn't cause B to start drowning, so A didn't force B to choose between two extremes. If A had pushed B into the lake when he knew that B couldn't swim, and then offered to rescue B in exchange for all of B's life savings, then A would clearly be coercing B.
Esuric, Liberty Student, JonBostwick, JackCuyler, and myself are all defining "voluntary" such that anything voluntary is necessarily mutual as well. Furthermore, B being rescued by A in exchange for all of B's life savings is mutual for B -- otherwise, B would have preferred to go without A's help!
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
MaikU:That wasn't my point. Take for example a rapist and a victim. Rapist demands "either you submit or I will kill you". Can this "voluntary exchange" be called mutually beneficial?
How is it a voluntary exchange? I certainly wouldn't consider it such. Nor do I think would Esuric, Liberty Student, JonBostwick, or JackCuyler. If you're consider a rape to be a voluntary exchange, then what isn't a voluntary exchange to you?
JackCuyler:In my desert story, I thought I was clear that the young man was risking his life by giving up the water. That was my point: The billionaire obviously benefitted from the exchange, but there was a very real risk to the young man. A million dollars for a bottle of water is not always a simple example of pure greed.
Technically, the young man doesn't face a dilemma. For example, he could make a counter-offer of half the bottle of water for a million dollars.
Listen, I could improve your life greatly by selling off all of my assets and giving you my entire life savings. The fact that I choose to hold onto my assets and entire life savings does not mean that I am exploiting you. The man who owns the bottle of water (person A), in BP's example, can choose to either give the bottle of water to the man dying of dehydration (person B), or he cannot. But the fact remains, person A is not dying because of person B, and person A has no right to the property of person B. There is a very clear and concrete definition of exploitation and a very clear and concrete distinction between persuasion and coercion. Society cannot function if it does not understand this. LLB's create ambiguity where there is none and override the subjective valuations of individuals with their own arbitrary value judgements (what is "right" and what is "wrong").
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:But the fact remains, person B is not dying because of person A, and person B has no right to the property of person A.
FTFY
I guess I'm not a very good story teller. Ahh well. I thried to make the situation as follows:
Yes he does. Any amount of water sold is water that he can not drink himself.
Peace
JonBostwick:Yes he does. Any amount of water sold is water that he can not drink himself.
The dilemma I was referring to is giving the billionaire the entire bottle vs. keeping the entire bottle for himself.
Sure, the person drowning values rescue and thus the person capable of rescue has something of value to trade, but he is only going to trade that for something he values in return.
My perspective is that it is kind of absurd to try to think of situations like this strictly in terms of economic exchange. I don't think it makes sense to reduce all human relations to "trade". Quite simply, I don't think these economic categories are universalizable to describe human relations. We're not economic calculation machines who act solely on the basis of exchange-utility.
BP's issues with trade, are the same as many other LLs. They only approve of voluntarism which also conforms to their aesthetic, the aesthetic of the trade partners is irrelevant. It's trade by sanction from 3rd parties. It's intolerance and a denial of the balance struck by two parties at the time of exchange.
This is a tiring canard. As I explained earlier in the thread, I actually take the values of the party B for granted to make my argument, since it is party B's capacity for autonomy and ability to realize their values that is in question. No 3rd party imposition is necessary, and furthermore I'm not even talking at the level of legality.
It's not a big leap to take this position even further, and see it is another justification for statism. A has rights which imposes positive obligations on B. This sort of thinking is nothing new. It's the same old brother's keeper mantra.
This sort of thinking is nothing new. It's the same old brother's keeper mantra.
I have explained to you and others why this is a non-sequitor and strawman, ad nauseum. You're mixing up the legal and non-legal portions of ethics to make such an accusation, a distinction which has been clarified over and over again.
I never said a word about legality. I am stricly talking about ethics and morality. Try again BP.
You implicitly make it about legality the moment you cry "statism" as a non-sequitor in reaction to people talking about non-legal ethics. It's a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization because noone has stated that anyone has legal obligations in these scenarios, making cries of "statism" nonsensical. At best, your statements imply that you think a non-legal normative position that one ought not to do what I've been describing leads to statism, which I think is highly debatable to say the least.
Esuric: and that's why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist. Just because A doesn't use coercion doesn't mean he isn't exploiting B. A knows very well, that B won't refuse to his offer, because he can die if he refuses to suck his dick. Listen, I could improve your life greatly by selling off all of my assets and giving you my entire life savings. The fact that I choose to hold onto my assets and entire life savings does not mean that I am exploiting you. The man who owns the bottle of water (person A), in BP's example, can choose to either give the bottle of water to the man dying of dehydration (person B), or he cannot. But the fact remains, person A is not dying because of person B, and person A has no right to the property of person B. There is a very clear and concrete definition of exploitation and a very clear and concrete distinction between persuasion and coercion. Society cannot function if it does not understand this. LLB's create ambiguity where there is none and override the subjective valuations of individuals with their own arbitrary value judgements (what is "right" and what is "wrong").
Brainpolice:You implicitly make it about legality the moment you cry "statism" as a non-sequitor in reaction to people talking about non-legal ethics. It's a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization because noone has stated that anyone has legal obligations in these scenarios, making cries of "statism" nonsensical. At best, your statements imply that you think a non-legal normative position that one ought not to do what I've been describing leads to statism, which I think is highly debatable to say the least.
By "non-legal ethics", do you mean a presumed part of ethics where violations thereof do not justify coercion or punishment of the violators?
MaikU:I am not talking about "legal exploitation", but the ethical one, or just in general sense, being in a position of power and KNOWING it very good and then using it to justify one's moral failings so to speak.
Again, how do you define "position of power"? Do you define "power" like I do -- "ability to coerce"? Or what?
Brainpolice:You implicitly make it about legality the moment you cry "statism" as a non-sequitor in reaction to people talking about non-legal ethics.
I have told you I am explicitly not talking about legality. I am talking explicitly about your (brother's keeper) morality.
Brainpolice:It's a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization because noone has stated that anyone has legal obligations in these scenarios, making cries of "statism" nonsensical. At best, your statements imply that you think a non-legal normative position that one ought not to do what I've been describing leads to statism, which I think is highly debatable to say the least.
You're a third party. How do you determine what is and is not mutual between two consenting parties? What standard? By what authority?
This stuff is so funny. Carson was just as elusive as you are being when I tried to pin him down on the same thing. I'm not at all surprised you have decided to twist my argument rather than try to defend your own. Telling.
liberty student: MaikU:and that's why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist. So then what do you base your anarcho-capitalism on?
JackCuyler: But if he demands "oral sex" or any other extreme service, then it is clear enough that he is just playing with a victim. So you, a third party, gets to determine this? Can you not see the difference between being a person causing someone harm, and nature causing someone harm? Rape is one person harming another. The rapist offers a choice, sure, but it is a choice of the rapist hurting the victim in one manner, or the rapist hurting the victim in another manner. Our drowning person, in this example, at least, is a victim of nature. The horny guy walking by also offers a choice: I will do something nice for you if you do somethig nice for me, or I can just leave you alone.
About the "position of power thing", I definitely think that in the drowning scenario, the non-drowning person is *situationally* in a position of power. It's not political power, but it is a position of power relationally, in the sense that their decision can significantly effect the life of someone else - and in this case, their decision equates to life or death for someone else. The fact that it's a position of power becomes even more clear when we add that they are making demands of servitude from someone else based on the fact that the other person is in a vulnerable position. I don't see how we can look at such a scenario and not see that there is an obvious power dynamic that can be taken advantage of.
Likewise, in my original bottle-of-water scenario, the non-dehydrating person is in a position of power in that they possess something that is instrumental towards saving the other person's life; the power to withhold that, their decision to share it or not, determines someone else's fate. Are they Hitler? No. But there obviously is a power dynamic that they can use to gain as much as they can from someone else, while that someone else is essentially helpless. I would say that someone who knowingly, willing tries to gain something in such a way from someone in a vulnerable position, to make a power play, is basically engaged in exploitation.
This is essentially what I understand "exploitation" to mean, no LTV necessary. It has to do with the power dynamics of particular situations, basically taking advantage of other people's lack of options and unfortunate circumstances to either control them are gain as much as one can from them. And absolute land property rights (potentially) justifies exploitation because a chunk of land functions as an unlimited sphere of power in which one can control others (do whatever I tell you to do within these lines, or be forced outside of these lines).
MaikU:I agree completly, but you still don't seem to get my point.
I'm confused how you can agree completely, and still disagree.
Autolykos: MaikU:That wasn't my point. Take for example a rapist and a victim. Rapist demands "either you submit or I will kill you". Can this "voluntary exchange" be called mutually beneficial? How is it a voluntary exchange? I certainly wouldn't consider it such. Nor do I think would Esuric, Liberty Student, JonBostwick, or JackCuyler. If you're consider a rape to be a voluntary exchange, then what isn't a voluntary exchange to you?
liberty student: MaikU:I agree completly, but you still don't seem to get my point. I'm confused how you can agree completely, and still disagree.
You seem to have a bad case of context-missing/context-dropping. You're blatantly "talking about legality" by interpreting my ethical position as implying something legal/political, I.E. when you cry "statism". This is pretty simple stuff.
As I have clarified, I'm speaking precisely in terms of the values of one party - for my purposes, their evaluation that "I got screwed over" or "I got taken advantage of, but I had little choice". What does your vulgar analysis say in response to one of the parties themselves claiming exploitation? It seems like it can only dismiss it out of hand by defining it out of existence a priori by appealing to nothing more than the mere fact that they made a choice at all, while the conditions under which or the context in which the choice was made is the relevant factor I'm bringing into it (while I side with the values of one party).
I think the funny part is how people can construe siding with one party as being 3rd party imposition, while 3rd party imposition of course carries with it connotations of physically forcing people to act in certain ways, which is of course a misrepresentation of what anyone here is advocating. But if "3rd party imposition" does basically amount to "making a judgement of relations between other people", I have to protest that treating this as an inherent sin is ridiculous. Making such judgements is simply what one does when applying interpersonal ethics. Perhaps "value-free economics" isn't supposed to make such judgements, but economics doesn't have a monopoly on social philosophy and science. If you wish to use "economics" as effectively a ban on interpersonal ethics, as if subjective value theory automatically negates any external judgement, that's a huge categorical error.
The point is that your own argument attempting to counter my own is based on bait-and-switch, red herrings and non-sequitors. I can't possibly "defend my argument" when you don't address it to begin with, instead opting for off-the-cuff accusation-making.
Brainpolice: I would say that someone who knowingly, willing tries to gain something in such a way from someone in a vulnerable position, to make a power play, is basically engaged in exploitation. This is essentially what I understand "exploitation" to mean, no LTV necessary. It has to do with the power dynamics of particular situations, basically taking advantage of other people's lack of options and unfortunate circumstances to either control them are gain as much as one can from them. And absolute land property rights (potentially) justifies exploitation because a chunk of land functions as an unlimited sphere of power in which one can control others (do whatever I tell you to do within these lines, or be forced outside of these lines).
Esuric: The issue at play is that there is vagueness surrounding the concept of "voluntary-ness" or that the systematic context in which these activities take place makes such "voluntary-ness" impossible. "You are creating vagueness where there is none in order to make your argument, which is, again, incoherent. Your position requires you to conflate persuasion with coercion. Mine doesn't." He's not conflating anything.he's saying exchanges as relations occur in a context and that even if the context is a voluntary relation then the context may be such that one has more influence over another or more authority etc.He's saying it may be a-ok on a libertarian level but morally not so.He's seperating the two issues out . Giving an extremely dehydrated person a bottle of water in exchange for a million dollars or lifetime enslavement is "voluntary" in a superficial sense and calling it "mutually beneficial" is trivially true to the point of it being a joke. " If the individual, that is about to die of dehydration, is willing to pay 1 million dollars for the bottle of water, that is, if he values the existence of his life more than the million dollars that he must surrender for that bottle of water, then a mutually beneficial exchange will take place" BP hasn't denied that I don't think.He's merely claiming that context affects what the traders can bargain for (esp under statism) "in the absence of any form of coercion." Your conflating libertarian concern for aggression and/or rights with broader moral questions which is what BP is seperating out.
The issue at play is that there is vagueness surrounding the concept of "voluntary-ness" or that the systematic context in which these activities take place makes such "voluntary-ness" impossible.
"You are creating vagueness where there is none in order to make your argument, which is, again, incoherent. Your position requires you to conflate persuasion with coercion. Mine doesn't."
He's not conflating anything.he's saying exchanges as relations occur in a context and that even if the context is a voluntary relation then the context may be such that one has more influence over another or more authority etc.He's saying it may be a-ok on a libertarian level but morally not so.He's seperating the two issues out .
Giving an extremely dehydrated person a bottle of water in exchange for a million dollars or lifetime enslavement is "voluntary" in a superficial sense and calling it "mutually beneficial" is trivially true to the point of it being a joke.
" If the individual, that is about to die of dehydration, is willing to pay 1 million dollars for the bottle of water, that is, if he values the existence of his life more than the million dollars that he must surrender for that bottle of water, then a mutually beneficial exchange will take place"
BP hasn't denied that I don't think.He's merely claiming that context affects what the traders can bargain for (esp under statism)
"in the absence of any form of coercion."
Your conflating libertarian concern for aggression and/or rights with broader moral questions which is what BP is seperating out.
Esuric I think your missing the point .
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Brainpolice: I have told you I am explicitly not talking about legality. I am talking explicitly about your (brother's keeper) morality. You seem to have a bad case of context-missing/context-dropping. You're blatantly "talking about legality" by interpreting my ethical position as implying something legal/political, I.E. when you cry "statism". This is pretty simple stuff.
What part of "I am explcitly not talking about legality" do you not understand? I wrote very clearly that your morality is used as a justification for statism. I never implied anything legally, one way or another. Statism is ad hoc and arbitrary, clinging to any irrational justification like your brother's keeper morality when convenient.
Brainpolice: You're a third party. How do you determine what is and is not mutual between two consenting parties? What standard? By what authority? As I have clarified, I'm speaking precisely in terms of the values of one party - for my purposes, their evaluation that "I got screwed over" or "I got taken advantage of, but I had little choice". What does your vulgar analysis say in response to one of the parties themselves claiming exploitation? It seems like it can only dismiss it out of hand by defining it out of existence a priori.
As I have clarified, I'm speaking precisely in terms of the values of one party - for my purposes, their evaluation that "I got screwed over" or "I got taken advantage of, but I had little choice". What does your vulgar analysis say in response to one of the parties themselves claiming exploitation? It seems like it can only dismiss it out of hand by defining it out of existence a priori.
How is my analysis vulgar? You are the one claiming that one party bears complete reponsibility for the outcome of a transaction, the psychological valuation, past, present and future of the other party. How is this even workable, let alone reasonable? That is the question being put to you. What do you do when both parties claim exploitation, as they both surely can? How do you resolve this? Who is right, who is wrong?
If anyone's analysis here is vulgar re:voluntarism, it is yours. You are the one who claims that voluntary action is not voluntary if someone regrets it later. It's not only unjust to the party being accussed of exploitation, it is potentially very dangerous (VULGAR) when put into action in society. And we have numerous examples of how exploitation theory damages society, creating victims where there are none, by recognizing victimization that never occurred.
Brainpolice:This stuff is so funny. Carson was just as elusive as you are being when I tried to pin him down on the same thing. I'm not at all surprised you have decided to twist my argument rather than try to defend your own. Telling. The point is that your own argument attempting to counter my own is based on bait-and-switch, red herrings and non-sequitors. I can't possibly "defend my argument" when you don't address it to begin with, instead opting for off-the-cuff accusation-making.
I have clearly laid out my argument. You refuse to defend yours. I can repost all of the questions I have asked you that you have not directly answered so you can have another try at it.
We've done this dance several times, I've done it with Wombatron and Carson. People with your exploitation perspective have never been able to explain how exploitation can be established.
Yes, and/or that portion of ethics that doesn't have to do with physical aggression.
See above.
It has to do with the power dynamics of particular situations, basically taking advantage of other people's lack of options and unfortunate circumstances to either control them are gain as much as one can from them.
This is how this reads to me:
So we start with the presumption that what's going on is bad, and then call it exploitation to show that it is bad.
Maybe I just don't "get the context" of the situation.
What you seem to be missing is that, yes, while "nature" may be the cause of the person's unfortunate circumstances, one is taking advantage of someone else's unfortunate circumstances to control them and get them to do something they obviously do not want to do. They most certainly are being made into a victim by the way the power dynamics are being used. At best, it's one step removed from rape, and if the person resists after being saved, it is rape. The rational-self-interest/mutual-exchange model simply doesn't apply to these kind of things.
liberty student: MaikU:To answer the topic, not all voluntary (voluntary?) transactions are mutual. If they are voluntary, they have to be mutual.
MaikU:To answer the topic, not all voluntary (voluntary?) transactions are mutual.
If they are voluntary, they have to be mutual.
A psychologically mistreats his girlfriend B but never beats her or threatens it.I'd hardly say that's mutual.You don't need to be an LL to see that.I've always though this way.By saying it's mutual your essentially saying it's moral which doesn't make much sense.
This is how this reads to me: So we start with the presumption that what's going on is bad, and then call it exploitation to show that it is bad. Maybe I just don't "get the context" of the situation.
I don't see how that circular argument can be implied from what is written. I simply defined what I mean by exploitation. It wasn't an argument for why exploitation is bad, but what it is for my purposes.
Scott F:A psychologically mistreats his girlfriend B but never beats her or threatens it.I'd hardly say that's mutual.You don't need to be an LL to see that.I've always though this way.By saying it's mutual your essentially saying it's moral which doesn't make much sense.
Maybe she likes being mistreated. Perhaps you're not familiar with the BD/SM scene. Would you argue that alternative sexual lifestyles and relationships are not mutual? How would you determine what is and is not?
You're stuck with BP and others with this argument, because you're saying that YOU the 3rd party can void any exchange or interaction. Or you're saying, that one party can always void a transaction by claiming exploitation. Which almost works, except which party gets to claim this? What if they both do?
Can you answer those two questions?
The symptomatic problem I see with many libertarians is that they have tunnel vision for only physical force and obvious coercion. Everything outside of that range is then defined a priori as inherently mutually beneficial and you're not allowed to make judgements about it because economics-says-so. This often ends up forming into what I find to be a strange dualism in which, on one hand, a certain narrow set of principles are treated in an absolute and universalist manner, while on the other hand, everything else is treated as individually-subjective preferences. Obviously, I don't think this is coherant.
Where I get stuck here is the "lack of options" and "unfortunate circumstances" part. Don't those things necessarily imply subjective value judgements to begin with? My problem is that judgement has already been made out of the circumstances, and that the circumstances are "bad". This would imply that wether something is exploitation or not is subjective.
Is it possible that there are situations where one person can gain plenty from another through some kind of exchange and it isn't exploitative?
The symptomatic problem I see with many libertarians is that they have tunnel vision for only physical force and obvious coercion. Everything outside of that range is then defined a priori as inherently mutually beneficial and you're not allowed to make judgements about it because economics-says-so. This often ends up forming into what I find to be a strange dualism in which, on one hand, a certain narrow set of principles are treated in an absolute and universalist manner, while on the other hand, everything else is treated as individually-subjective preferences.
Yes. I only get interested in discussions regarding morality/ethics because I find the attempt to create an objective theory of it to be interesting.
Otherwise, I believe that what is "bad" or "good" is entirely subjective. I haven't been convinced of the usefulness or validity of any "objective" theories of what is good or bad.