That's my point: our notions of "rights" or "moral reasons" actually mask customs and instincts that are only in practice due to efficiency and welfare-maximization (e.g., property rights are only praised in this world contingently, in accord with their consequent benefits). If property rights diminished efficiency, then I very much doubt we would line our yards with fencing.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Using the "guns" argument is a red herring and an appeal to emotion that tries to invoke fear to persuade someone to your side of the argument. Unless someone already is already politically inclined towards small government or no government, it's not going to work. I could use gun arguments and spend my time theorzizing in my freetime, but unless I use data to back up my claims. I'm hardly going to convince or raise doubts in critiques. Take for example private roads. I could argue until i'm blue in the face that would be be most cost effective and less congested compared to public roads, but if I can't back it up with examples(which there are) then i'm running into a dead end with critques.
It's really pretty simple - if pointing out that what someone is saying amounts to shooting people for something trivial doesn't work, then I'm not particularly interested in getting along with the group it doesn't work with, and certainly not inclined to discuss political theory with them.
You could point about examples about public/private roads also you're blue in the face also, but unless you provide some reason to think those examples should be generalized, you're welcoming "yea, well, elect different people" and that kind of response.
Theory and evidence go hand-in-hand.
For all the hooplah Austrians give about their "apodictically certain truths," I believe that if those models were never linked to data (viz. thymology), then no one would ever take Austrian economics seriously--not ever. The current resurgence of interest in Austrianism is a consequence of its perceived strength in explaining our recent financial crisis, not in a recent reconsideration of its logical imperviousness.
It's a question for psychology why a person chooses to believe in something. It's not necessarily the same question as what the logical conditions are that would suggest it is true.
I agree with Neoclassical. A good theory is practical and can be shown to work percentage wise, a bad theory, now matter how logical it may sound is a bad theory if it has no practicality. As for what you are saying in regards to guns, if it's just: the FDA should be abolished because they are forcing companies to put nutrition facts on their foods, then I would consider that to be a weak argument against the FDA and regulation in general and I imagine most people would.
That's actually not what I've argued here, but it turns out it's what I believe. I think it's bad to hit and shoot people, and institutionalized violence is bad in particular.
Regarding theory - as I've said a few times in this discussion itself, and no one has responded to - it takes a theory X to decide if the data fit a theory Y or not. Then you need to verify X, which requires Z, and so on. This notion of "go where the data lead you" is simply a chimera and a cover for introducing some other theory, just as the claim that ideology is bad is just a cover for importing your own ideology.
StrangeLoop:If person A believes that rape is actually a gift to person B, then B's forceful resistance is coercive.
This is not how the term coercion is used in libertarianism. Nor does it make much sense to use it in this way.
It is certainly not this type of "coercion" the advocates for free markets argue against, so i don't see the point of what you're trying to make here.
If you want to discredit my use of the term, then you should re-define it according to your sensibility, not merely allude that you have a different definition.
Essentially, I was proposing that the Austro-libertarian use of "coercion" is narrowly defined to suit ideological interests, even though coercion / aggression is much more fundamental in social affairs (somewhat akin to Foucault's philosophy).
yes, its narrowly defined so as to exclude rape.
.....
sheeesh.
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
EconomistInTraining:That's the point, entrepreneurs are maximising their utility to the detriment of society.
Let me make sure I have this clear.
You: Someone with guns should step in and force people to label stuff because of consumer/producer information assymetry.
Me: If consumers cared then information assymetry can be solved without guns by an entrepreneur. If consumers don't care, well they won't read your labels anyway.
You: Screw entrepreneurs, that first group isn't providing all of the information I want and the fact that a second one is willing to do it isn't good enough.
Is that correct? What's wrong with a Consumer Reports or [H]ardOCP for food?
StrangeLoop: If you want to discredit my use of the term, then you should re-define it according to your sensibility, not merely allude that you have a different definition. Essentially, I was proposing that the Austro-libertarian use of "coercion" is narrowly defined to suit ideological interests, even though coercion / aggression is much more fundamental in social affairs (somewhat akin to Foucault's philosophy).
No, you were not arguing over proper/improper user of terms. Here is what you said:
"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."
Is there anybody in this forum that thinks or even advocate a sort of NAP that rejects all use of violence?
So you've set up an obvious strawman here by conflating libertarianism with pacifism in your own definition of NAP, and then proceed to argue that private law will sometimes produce non-libertarian laws.
Do Austro-libertarians consider business regulation, prohibition of drug use, etc. transgressions of the NAP?
A simple "Yes" or "No" would work.
nirgrahamUK, I obviously have no problem with that prohibition! My main point is that the participants of society use aggression to order the community, coercively managing the participants according to generally-liked rules (e.g., "Don't trespass," "Don't murder," etc.).
Whenever your behavior is involuntarily limited by other humans (and not the laws of nature per se), then I contend that coercion is being used.
But I hope that you realise that libertarians oppose initiation of aggression (a particular subtype of coercion).
self defence is legitimate coercion etc.
But I hardly need to tell you, who are yourself a libertarian
Yeah, I know, but I still think social order ultimately depends upon coercion. I'm quite fond of the NAP, even though I don't take it too seriously and never preach it; nevertheless, to limit the actions of another human being (for whatever reason) seems inescapably coercive: "If you desire to do x, we will stop you due to our moral code."
due to our moral code that permits self-defence?
Besides you aren't thinking like an economist ;-) however problematic you may find a philosophy that justifies self-defence, in isolation; you ought to be contrasting that philosophy against the problems of philosophies that don't, or worse.
opportunity cost.
StrangeLoop: Do Austro-libertarians consider business regulation, prohibition of drug use, etc. transgressions of the NAP?
No! The aggression stems from the illegitimate monopoly ownership by the government over the economy. Not from the regulations. Private property owners setting their own rules is not aggression.
Just to be clear, DD5: in a township with private law-making and enforcement, if a person is arrested (or fined, etc.) for possessing marijuana, then that does not violate the NAP--is that right?
If that person then states that he has "self-ownership" over his own body, what would you say?
I presumed that Rothbard (et al.) would have considered even that private law to be illegitimate, since it transgresses upon the inviolable right of self-ownership (or so is claimed).
StrangeLoop: If that person then states that he has "self-ownership" over his own body, what would you say?
I'd say he's full of it. You don't have any such right that necessitates the violation of somebody else's rights. If you did, then we'd be talking about the form of anarchy that really does result in chaos.
You don't have the right to the property of others. So if you walk into a restaurant that bans smoking, you don't have any legitimate claim to smoke on the basis of some self ownership. That's not libertarianism.
StrangeLoop: I presumed that Rothbard (et al.) would have considered even that private law to be illegitimate, since it transgresses upon the inviolable right of self-ownership (or so is claimed).
No he would not. I suggest you reexamine this topic, as well as what Rothbard would presume.
Ideology sucks.
So, the only reason natural-law / deontic Austro-libertarians rail against drug prohibition is because of the process that generated it, not the actual policy?
StrangeLoop: So, the only reason natural-law / deontic Austro-libertarians rail against drug prohibition is because of the process that generated it, not the actual policy?
I don't like the Austro-libertarian label. I don't know what it means.
As far as private property is concerned, its not just the process but the actual ban: it violates your right to self ownership because it forbids you to do to your body as you so choose to do so on your own private property.
As far as public property is concerned, then it is not the ban per se that is illegitimate, but the illegitimate ownership over the actual property. The rules and regulations are then illegitimate on the account that they were devised by an illegitimate owner.
Obviously, we can then go on to theorize about the loss in utility and freedom of action, as compared to some comparative institution, i.e., a free market.
For example, a private owner of a road can set a speed limit. You have no right, as a customer, to drive as you wish. You are not compelled or forced to use that road, just as you are not compelled by force to eat hamburgers at Mcdonalds. You can't walk in and demand a steak dinner. And you can't also walk in and harass the other customers. The owner has a right to demand that you leave his property.
But yes. Drug prohibition is illegitimate because it violates individual rights, private property, etc...
If you have some really weird allergies, you should form a mutual aid society with everyone else that suffers from the same problem. Then you could pool your resources and test every product to see if it contains stuff you are allergic to or not. No need to force companies to print on their packaging any sort of information. If YOU want to know some information YOU have to pay for it.
I have an even better idea: Let's allow the FDA to continue requiring food companies to print labels on their products. It's one of the more useful agencies in that it's practical. I call it pragmatism.
I call it interventionism
I call it barbarism
DD5, if in a privately owned land, there was a sign at the entry that said, "All who enter shall be raped," and if a person entered and was forcibly raped, is that legitimate according to Austro-libertarianism?
P.S. "Austro-libertarianism" is a term I first discovered from LvMI scholars describing libertarians who adhere to Austrian economics, and many seem to have a natural law / deontic bent on their morality.
P.S.S. I surely do seem to have a challenge understanding the bounds of "coercion" as construed by NAP; I consider coercion socially ubiquitous.
StrangeLoop:DD5, if in a privately owned land, there was a sign at the entry that said, "All who enter shall be raped," and if a person entered and was forcibly raped, is that legitimate according to Austro-libertarianism?
Your example is ambiguous so we must clarify it. If the person agrees to be raped then there is no rape in the real sense of the term. People should be allowed to participate in such roll playing in a free society. Don't you think?
But what about if the person agrees to the terms (putting the question aside of whether a sign would be a sufficient implied contract), but then changes his mind while he's already on the premises in the hands of the "rapist". Is that your question?
The answer to that question is controversial among libertarians and is basically the question about the legitimacy of voluntary slavery. Rothbard would say -not legitimate, however, Walter Block for example (also a natural law libertarian) says: Yes, it is legitimate.
StrangeLoop: "Austro-libertarianism" is a term I first discovered from LvMI scholars describing libertarians who adhere to Austrian economics, and many seem to have a natural law / deontic bent on their morality.
I know what it means but I think it is nonsense.
Indeed. Homsteading should be seen more as an elastic concept that is based more off of effecient use of land, rather than some dubious fantastic idea of ownership, that probably doesn't exist. Of course, the terms "ownership", "coersion", etc are all legal/cultural/aesthetic terms and fall within the language of those practiced arts and outside of the language and methodology of value free logic and science. So long as we are not speakiong of the aesthetic or legal theory "rights", etc can not be spoken of with much sense in this case; "effeciency", "if x than y", or "how to achieve x, y, and z" can be spoken of.
P.S: Nice name change to the GEB reference.
the folks in favor of government regulations requiring food allergen labeling might want to check out this article by lew rockwell: http://mises.org/daily/1572
i just read that article last night and couldn't stop thinking about it during my lunchbreak. then, when i got home, i logged on and saw this thread. weird.