I'm distributing them anyway. What will you do about it? "Preventing from distributing" is as vague as the first requirement. The point I'm making is that just because you make a statement doesn't mean that statement is carried out. You need to make sure it's carried out. Here I am distributing my candy bars whose labels aren't up to your standards. What do you do now?
Well I am not sure if stores would even accept your products, but anyways, you would be arrested. I assume though that you aren't trying to somehow take the fact that force it required at some point as an argument against me, as the case is exactly the same when discussing propert rights. If I don't respect property rights, at some point force will be used against me. But this obviosuly is not a good argument against property rights.
Back to our gummi bear eater. Had he known it was made in a peanut-containing factory, he wouldn't have eaten it. Had he followed my advice, he wouldn't have eaten it. Same result either way.
But he does eat it without the label, whereas with the label he does not eat it. He always thought the food was safe, as he has eaten them before. Stuff like this happens all the time.
Rather than forcing people with allergies to hunt down specific foods which specifically advertize being meade in an X free facility (and this would not exist for every food group or every allergy by any means. Not even close.), the problem could be solved by requiring labeling.
I've already said that there is a sensible response for them - they should eat only those breads labeled as not containing peanuts.
Bread is a problem for people allergic to hazelnuts. But anyways, without labels, people would not know what bread does and does not have hazelnuts. Neither you nor I know whether or not companies would specifically advertize this on their bread. But we do know that consumers will know if labeling is required.
Your second to last paragraph is simply a choice to ignore everything that has been said. I've pointed out that if allergy sufferers have any brains (presumably yes) then your labeling requirement just lets them eat more foods, rather than preventing them from dying. If 1 producer with an unlabeled product is ok, how about two? Three?
There is not a specific number where it suddenly becomes "OK." It is just that the effects of one producer who does not label his foods will not do much harm. But with accordance to the rule of law, this would still be unacceptable.
Although you did not answer one of my points. If I make a candy bar with poison in it, and I put it on the market without labeling it, what should be done?
Shouldn't I as a producer have the right to make and distribute such a product?
What if he didn't consider battery a form of aggression and then proceeded to assault someone? Would it not be aggression simply because he didn't think it is?
In the legal sense of the term, it could be aggression, just like assulting a police officer who is comming to collect taxes could be considered aggression in some legal sense. However, in the way that you guys are using the term, then yes, assult is not aggression for that person. They may hold different backround beliefs which lead them to this conclusion.
I'm interested to hear examples/scenarios and I'll do my best to address them.
A private owner of a forest allows for families to go on walks through it for the weekend. For some reasn, a forest fire starts, and the people are trapped inside and many can't find their way out. Since it is his property, he decides not to allow the firemen to come in and rescue tha families, although he does allow the families to leave (but they can't as they are trapped.). If the firement go on his land against his will, that would be tresspassing and hence a violation of property rights.
In every discussion I've seen about the homesteading principle (not as it may be applied historically, but the actual principle) this isn't the case. So long as one does not damage someone's property, I don't see how walking across land can be prohibited unless the owner homesteads it to be that way (building a fence for instance, clearly stating the intention is to keep people from walking on his land).
Well I guessed you learned something new then. If you go on someones land against their will even though they specifically tell you not to, that is tresspassing and a violation of property rights.
However, let's say no one is allowed to walk on your land. If the kid falls out of the tree and breaks his leg or something and is completely unable to move, then he is permanently stuck aggressing against the homeowner's property unless the homeowner either moves the kid, or let's someone move the kid. Presumably the home owner doesn't want the kid on his lawn as he sees this a a violation of his property rights. It's in the owner's interest to get the kid off his lawn and even to let someone walk onto his lawn to move him. In other words if he wants the kid off his lawn, he has to allow someone to come get him or he himself has to move the kid. If he doesn't care that people are on his lawn then there is no violation of property rights and thus no problem.
Or he just doesn't think of everything in this private property paradigm. The kid falls and breaks his neck, and people want to come rescue him, but for one reason or another, he does not allow anyone to tresspass on his land. In such a scenario, property rights need to go out the window, and if he stops people from saving the kid, that would be considered "aggression" by 99% of the population.
Even if this is really an act of property rights violation, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.
It was just an example to show that property rights don't matter as much as you think.
I don't think disagreeing is the issue here. If I grow a certain plant the feds don't like I can be locked up and if I resist I can be shot. If I simply disagree with the government's drug policy, I don't think anyone here is saying the government will come shoot me.
If in my example from earlier the situation escalated to the point where B shoots A (because A threatens B's life), B would be justified in doing so because he is ultimately defending his property, which he has a legitimate right to. In the case of drug laws the government is the aggressor so if the situation escalates to the point that the government shoots me ultimately because I smoke weed, it isn't justified.
And there are examples of government agencies severely injuring or killing people to enforce government rules. Just look at the history of the ATF.
Maybe I own a store. And no, I don't take the fact that force is required as an argument against your main point. Rather, I'm answering your question. You asked why I equated requiring certain things on the label to putting guns in people's faces. You've now said that if I sell a candy bar that doesn't meet your requirements, you'll put a gun in my face. That's why I equated them. It in itself doesn't mean your suggestion is wrong, just explains the phrase.
Now, let me sum up the points you made. If you look at one side of a forced transaction (the side that benefits) then its better than what might happen in an unforced transaction. True. Why should we look at one side of a transaction? What you need to show is that, somehow, the gain on that side is greater than the loss on that side plus any incidental loss. You haven't even bothered, in many posts, to even address that, taking it as enough to show that there is some gain. That's true for every forced transaction. Of course, I don't accept the validity of interpersonal utility comparisons, but I assume you do, in order to make the statements you've been making, so let's hear how you compare those things. That would, at least, give you a valid argument from your perspective.
On the other hand, it seems you now have some absolute standards, whereas before you didn't seem to. That is, "the rule of law" is now an absolute standard, requiring, for consistency, the use of force even in a case where you admit no harm is being done by your own premises. Why is "law" an absolute of this kind? Do you mean something specific by law, or simply anything emanating from a legislature? Although I disagree with his politics, Hayek does a pretty good job of explaining what is typically meant by the rule of law vs. orders from parliament for a specific person to do some specific thing, which is not traditionally called law. Which do you have in mind?
Did you know the candy bar contained poison? If you did, you're a murderer. If not, I believe in the requirement of mens rea, as much as it has gone out of fashion nowadays. Now, your "point" is probably that I'd use force against a murderer. or perhaps your point is that a peanut is like a poison to an allergy sufferer. The first is readily acknowledged - but the murderer has himself used force, the candy bar maker has not. Although I support the use of force less than most libertarians, yes, there are times when it is appropriate, namely for defense from initiation of force. Nothing like that exists here. As for the second possibility, I deny the similarity. I can legally produce poisons all the time - say, I might be a producer of drain opener, which is certainly a poison. This only becomes murder if I decide to tell you that this poison is food. So the proper similarity would be if I produced a candy bar which was not safe for allergy sufferers and labeled it "safe for allergy sufferers." Then I agree with you.
I commonly used the same debating tricks against theists before learning that it wasn't fair. You can't mandate, over his explicit objections, that your opponent hold a particular understanding of some term (generally a very strict one), defeat that, and claim to have defeated the concept. I used to insist that my opponents, no matter what they said "had to" believe God had such and such qualities, then show that there was some incoherency or inconsistency. That isn't fair. So, too, you're insisting that David take a specific (and ahistorical) version of homesteading, which is explicitly denied, not just by David, but by the people we can expect David has read on the issue, such as Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe - a version with no easements. Yet all three of these allow for easements of many types. In fact, those easements are themselves part of the homesteading theory as it has developed historically, both in philosophy and in common law. It isn't we who are offering the idea of homesteading without easements, its you are insisting that he have to accept it. How about not doing that?
Did you know the candy bar contained poison? If you did, you're a murderer.
Why? I just made a an object containing chocolate and poison. It has a brown wrapper which simply says "Eric's Bar." That is it. Why am I a murderer? After all, I am not required to label anything, and so I don't see how I am doing anything wrong.
The question is - are you selling the bar as food or not? If it label it as you say, and don't place it between two candy bars in the display, or, say, put it with the cleaning supplies, then you're no more guilty than the peson selling drain cleaner. If you sell it as food, you are intending to get others to eat it. As I said in my last post, there is a difference between selling poison and selling poison as food. Similarly, there is a difference between selling a candy bar with peanut traces in it, and selling a candy bar with peanut traces in it as a peanut-safe food.
Take the less dramatic case of the car producer that fails to install numerous parts that causes the likelihood of a fatality to go to half in the cash of a collision, are they guilty of murder? No. Would welfare be increased by mandating them to be explicit about their product? Yes.
I don't place it anywhere. I simply sell it to retailers, and if they ask me what is in it, I say it is a secret formula.
EconomistInTraining:Take the less dramatic case of the car producer that fails to install numerous parts that causes the likelihood of a fatality to go to half in the cash of a collision, are they guilty of murder? No. Would welfare be increased by mandating them to be explicit about their product? Yes.
"In the legal sense of the term, it could be aggression, just like assulting a police officer who is comming to collect taxes could be considered aggression in some legal sense. However, in the way that you guys are using the term, then yes, assult is not aggression for that person. They may hold different backround beliefs which lead them to this conclusion."
If I'm simply walking along and someone comes and beats the crap out of me simply because he doesn't view battery as a form of aggression, it's still aggression. If it isn't then the term is simply defined out of existence. It may not be aggression for that person, but it's still aggression. I may look at a tree and call it a horse that doesn't make it so.
"A private owner of a forest allows for families to go on walks through it for the weekend. For some reasn, a forest fire starts, and the people are trapped inside and many can't find their way out. Since it is his property, he decides not to allow the firemen to come in and rescue tha families, although he does allow the families to leave (but they can't as they are trapped.). If the firement go on his land against his will, that would be tresspassing and hence a violation of property rights."
The likelihood of scenarios like this are extremely small. First I'll say that yes, it seems to be a violation of property rights.
That said, the reason I find this so unrealistic is that everything the forest owner does is against his own interest . Not allowing firefighters on his land in the case of fire would result in immediate ostracism by the community (not in the legal sense, but in terms of voluntary interaction). The vast majority of the people would never interact (economically and socially) with him knowing what a cruel guy he is. Even if the firefighters save the people, the community will know that the forest owner didn't want them to. Also, if he cares about the preservation of the forest, it is highly likely that he would have taken many steps to ensure a major fire doesn't break out and if it does, it is also highly likely that he has a contract with the firefighters to allow them to come onto his land in the case of fire. This would have the added benefit of telling potential customers (people walking through the forest) that in the event of fire, firefighters are contractually allowed to come rescue them. Assuming a forest owner doesn't do any of this is highly unlikely because it is against his self interest in numerous ways. He would have to hate firefighters coming onto his land more than the consequences (which are big) of not letting them come onto his land. Now if the forest owner really doesn't care about the preservation of his forest, that should serve as a warning to potential forest walkers that this is potentially an unsafe forest.
Even in an anarcho-capitalist society, I doubt the firefighters would sit back and do nothing and I highly doubt that if the forest owner brought them to court that the arbiters would side with the forest owner. I do think it's a highly unlikely scenario, but I also wouldn't have a problem with the firefighters' actions. But that's just my take on the issue.
"Well I guessed you learned something new then. If you go on someones land against their will even though they specifically tell you not to, that is tresspassing and a violation of property rights."
Not necessarily, I don't think. We allow for easement in our society and I imagine the courts would do the same in an anarcho-capitalist society. I should have been more clear, but what I'm referring to when I mean walking on someone's land is walking on it to pass through or something similarly temporary that does not damage the property of the land owner.
"Or he just doesn't think of everything in this private property paradigm. The kid falls and breaks his neck, and people want to come rescue him, but for one reason or another, he does not allow anyone to tresspass on his land. In such a scenario, property rights need to go out the window, and if he stops people from saving the kid, that would be considered "aggression" by 99% of the population."
I don't think any 3rd party arbiter (under this system or an anarcho-capitalist one) would call it trespass to walk on someone's lawn to help a kid with a broken neck. I just can't picture this scenario unfolding. Someone tries to help the kid, the homeowner tries to stop him (in that case you're dealing with a fairly twisted individual), then other people stop the homeowner until the kid is off his lawn. The whole scenario seems a little ridiculous and obscure. 99% of the population might not consider this aggression, but 99% of the population also wouldn't try to prevent people from saving a kid with a broken neck if the kid was on their property.
"It was just an example to show that property rights don't matter as much as you think."
I still think they matter quite a bit. The examples which justify violations of property rights seem to me to be very unlikely scenarios. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just don't see the importance to the real world.
Either you sell it as food, or you don't. Retailers do not say "ok, sure, I'll buy your product without any clue as to what type of product it is." Have you ever worked in sales? What do you say when the store owner asks "well, you want me to sell your stuff. What is it?" Not what is in it, but what kind of product is it. If you say "I'm not telling you" then they have no business selling it as food. If you say "food" then you're selling it as food. If you say "something dangerous" then they're not going to sell it as food.
Argument? Remember, no interpersonal utility comparisons, please.
It is meant more to be a thought experiment than anything else. I don't actually expect this to be a problem that we would need to worry about. It is just a case where the producer should be required to let consumers know that it is toxic.
But how about this example. Lets say there is some cleaning chemical that can cause extremely deadly side effects if you breath in too much of it. These side effects however are not noticable until long after you inhale the toxin. Do you think the comapny ought to be required to label this?
It's just a thought experiment, it can't stand up to anyone asking enough questions...but it's a case where I'm right. Nice.
No, I don't think the company ought to be required to label the cleaning solution. They should be prohibited from saying "absolutely safe to inhale." If they choose not to list their ingredients, consumers might choose to buy a different product, that's up to them.
Or maybe it is cheaper, so customers buy it and unknowlingly inhale toxins.
Yes, they chose to save money over buying a product with known ingredients. They, shockingly, have different value preferences than you do. You can accept that and understand why BR has 31 flavors, or you can, as you've advocated throughout our discussion, force them to see things your way. Then you might be puzzled as why BR has so many flavors, when your favorite is cookie dough. Why shouldn't everyone eat cookie dough?
Legally, yes. However, maybe he believes in a concept called "oogle property" which you violated by "walking along." His assult on you was thus retaliatory and thus not aggression.
If I walk inside your house at night and you forcefully kick me out of it, is that "aggression" to you?
But in such a scenario, no matter how unlikely, the firement would not be acting wrongly by violating the mans property rights. The man should be punished for not allowing the families to be saved (assuming he is somehow actually able to stop the firemen from tresspassing). Agreed?
You are making many assumption here. For starters that statelessness would look anything like anarcho-capitalism. That courts and arbiters would be fair and neutral, and that property rights would even be respected to any reasonable degree to begin with. None of these are reasonable assumptions,
You don't know what courts would do in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Here is a question for you, if I homestead land, do I have a right to descriminate? Should I be allowed to tell someone, "you are not allowed on my property."
So in such a scenario, it is OK to violate a persons right to private property. We agree. However, the decision made by a third arbiter is dependant on many things. One of which is the relative wealth of each of the sides in the dispute.
Yes, they chose to save money over buying a product with known ingredients. They, shockingly, have different value preferences than you do. You can accept that and understand why BR has 31 flavors, or you can, as you've advocated throughout our discussion, force them to see things your way.
And you are "forcing people to see things your way" when you say that private property should be enforced. The problem is not that people have different value preferences than me. I could make the same argument regarding private property. The problem is that people unknowingly purchase something toxic. This problem can be easily solved however.
They unknowingly purchase something toxic because they valued saving money over getting all the information. That's a trade-off. Why is it a trade-off? Because information has costs. You say the costs have to be imposed on the producer. I say they should be left alone and the consumer can accept the cost, or not accept the cost. You'll notice that they're making a decision between protecting their own body and going to a certain amount of effort to get information. On the other hand, in the private property comparison you're making, the choice there has to do with other people's stuff. But, regardless, yes it is also a choice as to how much energy to expend protecting your property. I don't believe in socialized protection of private property, if that's what you're assuming here.
I think the costs of labeling and printing all those things are such a waste these days, when the producer could instead put up a website or answer machines by phone for those interested, and just print that one line of contact information on it. That the government still requires the entire nutritional information to be on the box of every single product is a huge loss for everyone IMO.
"Legally, yes. However, maybe he believes in a concept called "oogle property" which you violated by "walking along." His assult on you was thus retaliatory and thus not aggression.
If I walk inside your house at night and you forcefully kick me out of it, is that "aggression" to you?"
Then he's not in a rational state. That doesn't mean he's not committing aggression.
And sure, that's aggression, but it's not the initiation of it. I don't see a legitimate reason for you to be in my house (certainly not easement) so I'd be justified in kicking you out.
"But in such a scenario, no matter how unlikely, the firement would not be acting wrongly by violating the mans property rights. The man should be punished for not allowing the families to be saved (assuming he is somehow actually able to stop the firemen from tresspassing). Agreed?"
I don't think he ought to be punished, just restrained.
"You are making many assumption here. For starters that statelessness would look anything like anarcho-capitalism. That courts and arbiters would be fair and neutral, and that property rights would even be respected to any reasonable degree to begin with. None of these are reasonable assumptions,"
It doesn't matter if you think they are reasonable or not to the point I was making, just as it doesn't matter if I think the scenarios you bring up are unlikely or not to the point you're making.
That said, I didn't say statelessness, I said anarcho-capitalism. I'm talking about a specific kind of statelessness because that's the kind of statelessness that recognizes the the homesteading principle I'm applying. I'd disagree with you about those assumptions being reasonable, but that's an entirely different issue.
'You don't know what courts would do in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Here is a question for you, if I homestead land, do I have a right to descriminate? Should I be allowed to tell someone, "you are not allowed on my property."'
Yes you have the right to discriminate against people and yes you have the right to keep them off your land but you must take steps to do that. Someone walking across your land for the purpose of easement (or perhaps retrieval of something he owns that is on your land such as a piece of paper blown by the wind) and not damaging your property isn't aggressing against you. If you don't want people on your land at all, you have to homestead the land in such a manner as to prevent them from doing so.
That the government still requires the entire nutritional information to be on the box of every single product is a huge loss for everyone IMO.
The marginal cost of doing so is almost zero, not to mention there are all sorts of other costs involved in putting it online.
EconomistInTraining:If pointing guns at heads increases welfare, I'm all for it.
Exactly.
This is implicit in all anarcho-capitalist models, but many Austro-libertarians somehow believe that the non-aggression principle (as conceived by them) would universally hold in all legal systems. As David Friedman states, "I predict that, if anarcho-capitalist institutions appeared in this country tomorrow, heroin would be legal in New York and illegal in most other places." I disagree with his prediction, actually, but I agree with its core premise: coercive measures that violate the Austro-libertarian NAP will be produced by private law. I actually even believe business regulations could form within an anarcho-capitalist society. Of course, my fundamental prediction is that laws would, more often than not, be economically efficient.
I tend to endorse all welfare-maximizing private law, and I believe all law is necessarily coercive insofar as it limits possible behavior.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Neoclassical:I tend to endorse all welfare-maximizing private law, and I believe all law is necessarily coercive insofar as it limits possible behavior.
In order to make this statement, you must first believe that welfare maximization is possible. In order to believe that welfare maximization is possible, you must first believe that welfare is objectively quantifiable*. Please demonstrate the objective quantifiability* for welfare.
* I consider the phrases "objectively quantifiable" and "objective quantifiability" to be pleonasms, but I use them here to hopefully reduce ambiguity.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos:In order to make this statement, you must first believe that welfare maximization is possible. In order to believe that welfare maximization is possible, you must first believe that welfare is objectively quantifiable*. Please demonstrate the objective quantifiability* for welfare.
No problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Morgenstern_utility_theorem
Proof by wikipedia. Problem: even the wikipedia acknowledges this bit:
Since for any two VNM-agents X and Y, their VNM-utility functions uX and uY are only determined up to additive constants and multiplicative positive scalars, the theorem does not provide any canonical way to compare the two. Hence expressions like uX(L) + uY(L) and uX(L) − uY(L) are not canonically defined, nor are comparisons like uX(L) < uY(L) canonically true or false. In particular, the aforementioned "total VNM-utility" and "average VNM-utility" of a population are not canonically meaningful without normalization assumptions.
Neoclassical:No problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Morgenstern_utility_theorem
Perhaps this is simplistic, but I fail to see how the concept of expected value in probability theory equates to the concept of human (dis)satisfaction. How are you defining "welfare"? It seems you're defining it very differently from me.
Furthermore, quoting from the article:
Thus, the content of the theorem is that the construction of u is possible, and they claim little about its nature.
This is just math, by which I mean even if u can be found, there's no necessary correlation between it and the real world.
Maybe you can easily address these issues I have, but for now I remain unconvinced that welfare (i.e. "how well-off people are") can be objectively quantified.
EDIT: JAlanKatz got ahead of me here. What Wikipedia refers to as "incomparability between agents" in the article seems to be, in effect, another way of expressing the Austrian-economic theory of subjective valuation.
I've only read the first couple of responses, but I sympathize with Eric No offense, responses given to him are the reason why a lot of people criticize libertarians as being idealists and ideologues who believe in the "magic of the free market" when are only answers to why something would happen is because: 1) They want to make their consumers happy!
or(the even more cringe worthy argument)
2) So you want those thugs pointing a gun to your head!
Instead of offering any modern day or historical evidence to back up assertations we spend our time simplying a problem and then trying to rationalize it as the only absolute.
The libertarians are trying to argue incentives versus the magic-wand theory of law. Government regulators are unlikely to produce good rules because of the incentives they face...
I don't know that anyone excepts people to behave the same way in their 'house' so to speak, as in public. In particular, I think we all behave differently at Mises Institute and answer more quickly and, well, gruffly, than we would if asked these questions at a liberal forum or a coffee house.
The great thing about markets, by the way, is that they are not magic. You've offered nothing in the way of criticism of these points other than a cringe. And no, no one wants those thugs pointing a gun at their own head - they are only happy to see it pointed at the heads of others. Scroll up and read the poster who is happy to see people shot to maximize 'welfare.'
So, do you have some reason companies in a free market would prefer to upset their customers? Or some point other than random cringing?
As far as your last paragraph, yes, you're right, I value things other than empirics, particularly in cases where no isolated laboratory exists. I value empirics in chemistry and physics precisely because we can have lab testing there, but even there, almost no one simply rests on the data. We still want a unifying theory, we want theoretical understanding that is consistent with the data. Hayek referred frequently to the American obsession with data as the only form of knowledge as a particular weakness in our philosophy as compared with Europe. Guess who is reading Hayek now? Scientists working on complexity theory and cognitive science, among others, who want to understand how things connect and work, which requires a theory.
Actually, by the way, I've written several long posts on incentives detailing how the market would behave, what goes on in the current situation, and the parallel example of kosher foods for which no legal requirements exist (they did in NY at one time - the religious community itself protested until they were taken down because they found that, with kosher labeling laws in place, they were unable to trust the certification, but when competing companies did it, they were able to trust it). Of course, very little of that has been quoted in replies.
I believe that cardinal utility does permit interpersonal comparisons, but I would also concede that certain normative assumptions are required (of course, I believe that the fact-value dichotomy is false, anyway).
Overall, I would contend that the compensation principle is a reasonable method for interpersonal comparisons of utility.
I didn't make my posts to offer any for or against positions on this topic. I made it because I think the way some of you guys go about trying to convince people to your side of the argument is ineffective and divisive. You're not going to convince people by directly, indirectly calling them a statist and simplying how you think the market would react and the overused gun argument is a piss poor attempt at appealing to emotion.
And yes I know the Austrian position on empiricism in economics, but providing real world evidence to show trends and back up your claims is a lot more convicing theorizing about what you think would happen.
Neoclassical:I tend to endorse all welfare-maximizing private law, and I believe all law is necessarily coercive insofar as it limits possible behavior
So if you want the body of someone else in order to make love to, but that person doesn't allow it, then she (or he) is coercing you?
You need to reevaluate your understanding of NAP.
JAlanKatz:Scroll up and read the poster who is happy to see people shot to maximize 'welfare.'
We all, unless radical pacifists, believe in force to maximize welfare; however, this economic justification is almost always implicit (the "law and economics" movement being an exception).
Consider the righteous Austro-libertarian appraisal of property rights, for instance; I find ethical cases for communism more appealing than the Locken proviso or any other ethical libertarian arguments--however, I find property rights to be more efficient and to maximize wealth. If we are willing to shoot trespassers or thieves or rapists, then we believe in force to maximize welfare.
DD5: Neoclassical:I tend to endorse all welfare-maximizing private law, and I believe all law is necessarily coercive insofar as it limits possible behavior So if you want the body of someone else in order to make love to, but that person doesn't allow it, then she (or he) is coercing you? You need to reevaluate your understanding of NAP.
The NAP defines "aggression" based upon specific presuppositions (e.g., self-ownership, etc.).
If person A believes that rape is actually a gift to person B, then B's forceful resistance is coercive. Of course, I wholly applaud B's revolt against that transgression.
In the arena of socially competing interests (varying ethical commitments, etc.), I believe we never escape the state of nature, but that power simply triumphs power (e.g., more cooperative societies overtake others not on the merit of transcendent morals, but on efficiency).
Well, I think you should qualify that claim with "to some people." I'm sure as hell more convinced by a priori knowledge than "real world evidence" which, as I and many philosophers spend our lives pointing out (I'm a teacher) does not come complete with its own interpretation. You need a framework to fit the data into, and, unsurprisingly, that framework will determine what you think the data means. Pointing to guns is not an argument, it's an observation. It's worth observing that people never sell their ideas in public by saying "lets have a ballot initiative on whether or not X should be shot." Why do you think they don't do that?
As a teacher myself, I realize that logically coherent ideas (Leibniz's monadology, Spinoza's geometric proofs, etc.) are always bunk without substantiating data.
Well, no, a person need not have any particular opinion on maximizing welfare (or think that such a term is coherent) to be willing to shoot a rapist. A woman who has never heard the term might be quite willing to shoot a rapist because she doesn't appreciate being raped - and, more specifically, for moral reasons having nothing to do with economics. That is, she might think "shooting rapists doesn't maximize utility" and do it anyway because she believes she has a right to.
Yet what matters is by what theory you determine whether or not the data substantiate the particular idea.