ryanpatgray:I am disputing Byzantine's claim that rights have a "market value". Rights are inherent. They exist whether or not one can "purchase" them.
Rights do have a market value. Whether or not you believe they are inherent isn't relevant. What is relevant is that insurance companies have to make money, and they won't do that protecting certain people. It's not eally the case that "might makes right" only that might is, at the end of the day, what matters.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:It's nearly really the case that "might makes right" only that might is, at the end of the day, what matters.
Interestingly, those who use this insight as a pro-state argument would even worsen the situation. Instead of relying on economic power which is, after all, built on your ability to serve your customers, they create political power which is based on your ability to appear like a trustworthy crook and effectively engage in the plundering of shunned minorities.I'd rather be judged by an entrepreneur than by a self-righteous actor.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her. How big a problem do you think this would be? Most adult men worth their salt would kill a child rapist upon detection were it not for the state's ruthless persecution of any enforcement of justice outside its coercive monopoly.
ryanpatgray:And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her.
How big a problem do you think this would be? Most adult men worth their salt would kill a child rapist upon detection were it not for the state's ruthless persecution of any enforcement of justice outside its coercive monopoly.
Upon detection is the problem. I do not think this would be a problem in a truly libertarian society but I think you and I differ about what a truly libertarian society would look like. We may even disagree on the definition of libertarian.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:I am disputing Byzantine's claim that rights have a "market value". Rights are inherent. They exist whether or not one can "purchase" them. Then let me clarify: protection of rights has a market value. Regardless of whether you think you have a right, for example, to purchase child pornography, you have to outbid everybody else who may disagree on the existence of such a right. In application therefore, it would seem to be a meaningless distinction.
Then let me clarify: protection of rights has a market value. Regardless of whether you think you have a right, for example, to purchase child pornography, you have to outbid everybody else who may disagree on the existence of such a right. In application therefore, it would seem to be a meaningless distinction.
This is not a meaningless distinction. Especially not if you advocate vigilante justice as you seem to in another post.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:I am disputing Byzantine's claim that rights have a "market value". Rights are inherent. They exist whether or not one can "purchase" them. Rights do have a market value. Whether or not you believe they are inherent isn't relevant. What is relevant is that insurance companies have to make money, and they won't do that protecting certain people. It's nearly really the case that "might makes right" only that might is, at the end of the day, what matters.
Rights do have a market value. Whether or not you believe they are inherent isn't relevant. What is relevant is that insurance companies have to make money, and they won't do that protecting certain people. It's nearly really the case that "might makes right" only that might is, at the end of the day, what matters.
If you believe that rights have a market value you are ceding the moral ground to a Mafia don who asks for "Protection money" which is only one step removed from the creation of government.
ryanpatgray:If you believe that rights have a market value you are ceding the moral ground to a Mafia don who asks for "Protection money" which is only one step removed from the creation of government.
No, I'm not. I'm not speculating about moral ground or what should be. As much as I find that interesting, I'm more concerned with the way things are. When you get rid of the state, if you want something, you pay for it.
That includes justice.
Byzantine: Why should you care if vigilantes mete out justice? Would you rather the state did it?
Byzantine: My point was actually just that children would not have to pay for protection from rape. In a low time-preference, traditionalist society, adults would protect children from rape without any expectation of payment.
Byzantine: Of course, I realize this is the mises.org forum where low time-preference and tradition are frowned upon.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:If you believe that rights have a market value you are ceding the moral ground to a Mafia don who asks for "Protection money" which is only one step removed from the creation of government. No, I'm not. I'm not speculating about moral ground or what should be. As much as I find that interesting, I'm more concerned with the way things are. When you get rid of the state, if you want something, you pay for it. That includes justice.
Justice has a market value. RIghts do not.
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:If you believe that rights have a market value you are ceding the moral ground to a Mafia don who asks for "Protection money" which is only one step removed from the creation of government. No, I'm not. I'm not speculating about moral ground or what should be. As much as I find that interesting, I'm more concerned with the way things are. When you get rid of the state, if you want something, you pay for it. That includes justice. Justice has a market value. RIghts do not.
Now you're being pedantic.
GilesStratton: Ryanpatgray: Justice has a market value. RIghts do not. Now you're being pedantic.
Ryanpatgray: Justice has a market value. RIghts do not.
GilesStratton:No, I'm not. I'm not speculating about moral ground or what should be. As much as I find that interesting, I'm more concerned with the way things are. When you get rid of the state, if you want something, you pay for it. That includes justice.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:You can't get justice before you define what justice is.
That's true, but justice is a subjective thing and its definition changes as human conditions do. Its unrealistic to assume that justice as contemporarily understood will remain as the contemporary situation morphs.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
ryanpatgray:Philosophy will be even more important in a stateless society.
No, it won't.
I'm sorry to tell you but it won't be Roderick Long or Ayn Rand running insurance companies. It'll be an individual who wants to make money off of you, and is willing to provide services in exchange.
Philosophy will stay confined to the ivory tower, as interesting as it may be.
Juan: Of course that's close to pure nonsense. You can't get justice before you define what justice is.
And can you guess what justice will be defined as by those who provide it? Whatever makes money. And that excludes pedophiles and child abuses.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:Philosophy will be even more important in a stateless society. No, it won't. I'm sorry to tell you but it won't be Roderick Long or Ayn Rand running insurance companies. It'll be an individual who wants to make money off of you, and is willing to provide services in exchange. Philosophy will stay confined to the ivory tower, as interesting as it may be.
Seconded.
laminustacitus:That's true, but justice is a subjective thing and its definition changes as human conditions do. Its unrealistic to assume that justice as contemporarily understood will remain as the contemporary situation morphs.
Precisely, although I have already relented in another thread because some folks will insist that subjectivity is necessary to have rights. And it's just a circular argument.
GilesStratton:And can you guess what justice will be defined as by those who provide it? Whatever makes money. And that excludes pedophiles and child abuses.
laministacitus:That's true, but justice is a subjective thing and its definition changes as human conditions do.
Juan: Well, I think that indoctrinating children with religious trash is one of worst possible types of child abuse. What's next ?
And I think that indoctrinating your children with cultural marxist trash is the worst thing you can do. What's next?
Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.
Juan:the market does not define what justice is.
You're missing the point. The philosophical question of what justice is may well be very interesting, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Because insurance companies won't be inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas or whoever else. Rather, they'll be interest in profit, which is exactly why they'll provide the "justice" that makes them the most money. So whilst that most likely won't be the "justice" that philosophical investigation leads us to, it will be the only justice that matters.
As for your cell phone analogy it's false. A better analogy would be that there exist numerous ideas about the perfect cell phone, companies won't strive to produce that one though, they'll produce the one that will make them the most money. Now, apply this to justice.
GilesStratton:And I think that indoctrinating your children with cultural marxist trash is the worst thing you can do. What's next?
Funny, you just used philosophy to try to make your claim. Think about that.
GilesStratton:Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.
Juan: If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ?
That is a very real risk. No one is saying it is preferable or desirable, but it is completely naive to think that the person who can hire the most enforcers and more weapons, absolutely will not direct them in an unethical manner.
Juan: Well, so you are a right wing totalitarian who disagrees with left wing totalitarians. Following your market based model of 'subjective justice' you may find yourself engaging in some sort of war with 'cultural marxist' -- have fun.
You seem to have fun setting up strawmen and posting ad homs. It doesn't matter, this childish behaviour and silly little revolt against authority is indicative of leftists, so I'm not suprised. War with cultural marxists? Not likely, that's expensive, they'll just be outcompeted.
Juan: I personally think that the morally right thing to do is to not indoctrinate children.
Indoctrinate? Here's the thing Juan, you can use newspeak for things you don't like but it doesn't change the fact that potentially anything you tell your children will have an effect on them. So whilst I may end up "indoctrinating" my children about religion, the leftists will be "indoctrinating" their children that it's ok to do drugs.
And do you really know that revealed religion is lies? Funny, I thought you claimed to be agnostic, no?
Juan:Another scenario : religious nuts believe that, following the holy bible, gays should be stoned to death. Some other people may disagree. So, what's next ? Will PDA X defend the "right to stoning" of religious madmen ? If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ?
If they think they can make money that way, yes.
GS:The philosophical question of what justice is may well be very interesting, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Because insurance companies won't be inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas or whoever else.
Rather, they'll be interest in profit, which is exactly why they'll provide the "justice" that makes them the most money. So whilst that most likely won't be the "justice" that philosophical investigation leads us to, it will be the only justice that matters.
As for your cell phone analogy it's false.
A better analogy would be that there exist numerous ideas about the perfect cell phone, companies won't strive to produce that one though, they'll produce the one that will make them the most money.
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton:Fortunately for me competition favours culturally conservative lifestyles, which is exactly why the leftists have always been so keen to suppress it.Define conservative lifestyles. Conservative means different things to different people.
Low time preference and respect for traditions. What does economics teach us about low time preference?
LS: J: If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ? That is a very real risk. No one is saying it is preferable or desirable, but it is completely naive to think that the person who can hire the most enforcers and more weapons, absolutely will not direct them in an unethical manner.
J: If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ?
ryanpatgray:Funny, you just used philosophy to try to make your claim. Think about that.
How so?
Even if I did so what? Because I'm interested in philosophy doesn't mean everybody else is. Unless you buy the Trotskyite notion of everybody becoming a Goethe once the state has been abolished I don't see why you think philosophy would become would prevelant. It wouldn't, in fact, the state subsidizes "professional" philosophers, so it might well go the other way.
GilesStratton:Low time preference and respect for traditions.
GilesStratton:What does economics teach us about low time preference?
Juan:Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY.
If you don't think it is then I guess that's too bad for you, since this is the result of abolishing the state. Not your utopian visions of Aristotle running insurance companies or the production of defense being inspired by Rational Man or The Libertarian Idea.
If you don't like this, stick to statism.
ryanpatgray:Tradition qua traditon? Or tradition in the light of modern knowledge?
Tradition in the sense of family and religious values. Amongst other things, such as "tribal" (for lack of a better word) values.
GS: J: Another scenario : religious nuts believe that, following the holy bible, gays should be stoned to death. Some other people may disagree. So, what's next ? Will PDA X defend the "right to stoning" of religious madmen ? If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ? If they think they can make money that way, yes.
J: Another scenario : religious nuts believe that, following the holy bible, gays should be stoned to death. Some other people may disagree. So, what's next ? Will PDA X defend the "right to stoning" of religious madmen ? If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ?
Juan:Let's indeed hope they won't be inspired by aquinas!!
What I meant to say is that they won't be run by philosophers, or even be philosophically inclined.
Juan: That's just circular
It's not circular to claim that there will be demand for what most people perceive to be just, and somebody will meet this demand. This is despite the fact that philosophy may tell us that justice is not what is being demanded.
Juan:The market can 'demand' that blacks be lynched. That doesn't mean that lynching blacks is just.
I've never said that, all I've said is that it's that view of justice that counts, even if philosophy tells us that concept of justice is wrong.
Juan:No. It's 100% correct.
No, it isn't.
Juan:To produce a cell phone you need to stick to the natural laws of physics. To produce justice you need to stick to the natural laws of morality.
And? How does this concern the analogy? It's not relevant. What's relevant is that what is ideal isn't what will be demanded.
GS: J: Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY. If you don't think it is then I guess that's too bad for you, since this is the result of abolishing the state. Not your utopian visions of Aristotle running insurance companies or the production of defense being inspired by Rational Man or The Libertarian Idea. If you don't like this, stick to statism.
J: Agreed. What I'm saying is that result WON'T BE A FREE SOCIETY.
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:Funny, you just used philosophy to try to make your claim. Think about that.How so?
GilesStratton:Unless you buy the Trotskyite notion of everybody becoming a Goethe once the state has been abolished I don't see why you think philosophy would become would prevalent.
GilesStratton:It wouldn't, in fact, the state subsidizes "professional" philosophers, so it might well go the other way.
Juan: GS: J: Another scenario : religious nuts believe that, following the holy bible, gays should be stoned to death. Some other people may disagree. So, what's next ? Will PDA X defend the "right to stoning" of religious madmen ? If the nutcases can pay enough they can have their 'laws' enforced ? If they think they can make money that way, yes. And, according to you, that outcome should be regarded as 'justice'
Yes, just not necessarily the correct view of justice. Although this is quickly turning into an argument over semantics, if it does I'm not going to bother carrying on.
My point is that it is this view of justice that counts, not Aristotles.