If an action will be good in the final outcome for what you value, it is right. If it won't be, it is wrong. Is there any higher arbiter in human affairs than the subjective preferences of human beings?
When the state does something wrong in your eyes, to what do you appeal? To appeal to God-given rights would be mild theonomy and would be attended by all its problems. I think the only thing to which to appeal is the market. Am I right?
Individualist: I think the only thing to which to appeal is the market.
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: Individualist: I think the only thing to which to appeal is the market. what does appeal to the market mean to you?
thats a fine strategy. go forth and multiply!
I'm definitely agreeable to this. To violate life, liberty, and property is to violate the free market. To have a good understanding of the economy, which I admittedly lack compared to others but I'm trying to learn, is to understand the role these natural rights (are the boundaries in how someones better interests are served) apply in a free market. Thus my endeavor is to learn more about the market to help explain and convince how it is as you said, "his interests would be better served, more accepted by the market, by doing as one would have him do."
Excellent!
nirgrahamUK: thats a fine strategy. go forth and multiply!
telling people about the virtues of the market process.
(it may suit you better than telling them about voluntarism and non aggression. if it does then great. different strokes.)
nirgrahamUK: telling people about the virtues of the market process. (it may suit you better than telling them about voluntarism and non aggression. if it does then great. different strokes.)
it leads to the same consequence but it is different. I think you acknowledge as much in your opening post.
Individualist: Wouldn't appealing to the market be the same thing as advocating non-aggression? Aggression isn't marketable, right?
Wouldn't appealing to the market be the same thing as advocating non-aggression? Aggression isn't marketable, right?
I agree. Aggression isn't marketable. I also agree with what UK is saying. Natural rights and the free market complement each other and to know one is to know the other. I personally think if I knew more economics I would be able to make better natural rights arguments. Do you see what I mean?
wilderness: Individualist: Wouldn't appealing to the market be the same thing as advocating non-aggression? Aggression isn't marketable, right? I agree. Aggression isn't marketable. I also agree with what UK is saying. Natural rights and the free market complement each other and to know one is to know the other. I personally think if I knew more economics I would be able to make better natural rights arguments. Do you see what I mean?