Since any aggressive action is an externality(altering of property without exchange), it contains aggression. And due to externalities being non-economic, they are to be condemned from an economic viewpoint. As such there is no economic justification for punishment of crime because any contrary opinion would mean giving up value free-ness.
pacifism is opposed to (self-)defence as well which you forgot to discuss.
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
If you want to eliminate all externality not much human activity will remain.
nirgrahamUK: Thats the point. Self defence imposes another externality, it is violation of the property rights of the aggressor, so it is un-economic. My point is, a value free economic argument cannot be used to justify libertarianism, as libertarianism is uneconomic in regards to punishment, as no economic punishment can exist.
What do you mean by 'externalities are non-economic' ?
p.s. there is no getting away from externalaties as scineram indicated. Every act causes externalities as it affects the universe that other people are in.
Nonsense. Justice is a good. If I have money I may buy cigarettes, or I may buy justice. Buying justice is expenditure yes. But it can be condemned form an economic viewpoint no more than any other expenditure.
It is you who is guilty of value-imperialism since you are upholding profit-maximization in terms of money as an absolute value and condemning people for spending money on punishment of criminals.
Marko:Justice is a good. If I have money I may buy cigarettes, or I may buy justice.
Without justice, you "have" neither money nor cigarettes.
Yes, but I can win the argument without going into this, so why bother.
Even if the punishment element of justice were non-economical (loss making) it still does not follow that value free economics condemns spending money on it.
nandnor:As such there is no economic justification for punishment of crime because any contrary opinion would mean giving up value free-ness.
The "economic" justification for justice is the ultimate one. Without justice (delineating ownership) there'd be no "property" to exchange/trade, hence no market, hence no economy to speak of. Justice's justification is meta-economical.
And who ever said having an economy was better than not having it?
Justice justifies itself. It does not need to be "justified" by being good for the economy.
z:The "economic" justification for justice is the ultimate one.
I misread this.
Marko:And who ever said having an economy was better than not having it? Justice justifies itself. It does not need to be "justified" by being good for the economy.
Good call Marko. Thanks for clearing up my mistake as suggesting what "z" had posted. Economic justification isn't the "ultimate one". That's what Carl Jung would label a godhead to think that economic justification is somehow "the" ultimate is haughty.
thanks Marko
wilderness, Marko --
There seems to be a misunderstanding. Please read the quoted text to which I was responding. Justice does not need an economy as its justification. But an economy cannot exist without justice delineating property rights between economic agents. In short and simple terms, justice doesn't need an economy, but an economy must have justice in order to exist. In response to nandnor, whatever the economic costs of justice may be, they cannot be seen as "loss-making" for without justice the economic loss would be far larger: having no economy at all.
I hope this clarified things a bit.
That's what I thought you meant at first, which is why I "suggested" your post. Then Marko's response made me wonder if I read too much of my thoughts into your post and misread what you said. Glad you cleared it up and it appears that what I originally thought you had said is true.
Good post z1235.
Nonsense. Justice is a good. If I have money I may buy cigarettes, or I may buy justice. Buying justice is expenditure yes. But it can be condemned form an economic viewpoint no more than any other expenditure. It is you who is guilty of value-imperialism since you are upholding profit-maximization in terms of money as an absolute value and condemning people for spending money on punishment of criminals.
The point is: punishment for crime is no different than state action to its citizens, looking at it through a value free economic prism. It is both externality. All that you guys have found to justify it has been the ethical libertarian argument.