Jon Irenicus: Are you talking to me? I think the "all" implies I am not.
Are you talking to me?
I think the "all" implies I am not.
Was I included in the all? I'm just curious to know if there is specifically something I wrote that you didn't agree with.
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.
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.
I agree completely. As Stirner said "Might makes right. Indeed, one gets further with a handful of might than a bag full of right." Whether or not you think a society should be based on belief in inalienable rights, those rights become alienable as soon as you are incapable of defending them. This is where the natural rights people become religious; they say that their rights have not been alienated from them, but merely "violated." Of course, if this is the case then "inalienable," becomes a meaningless word and we see a clear disconnect between reality and belief. Perhaps the NR believer is too stuck in his beliefs to see how absurd it is to tell someone about to die that their rights are still inalienable; they will lose their life but keep their "right to life."
Anyways, I'm digressing. The main point is that this is one of the points that the conservatives on this board see more realistically. Even if you are a strong believer in natural rights (in the "spiritual"-- not purely jurisprudential sense) I don't see how you can argue that there is at not a market for "protection of rights."
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."
That depends. Do you believe a PDF protecting some "right" to aggress is libertarian? Or do you think it's a substitute for the State that needs to be crushed in similar fashion?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:That depends.
Hmmmm
Jon Irenicus:Do you believe a PDF protecting some "right" to aggress is libertarian?
Of course not. But it is anarchic.
Jon Irenicus:Or do you think it's a substitute for the State that needs to be crushed in similar fashion?
Sure.
My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but that some asshole is going to pay armed men to be his thugs. It's very likely, if there is no monopoly on justice [sic] there will also not be a monopoly on crime sans the state.
Wanting to impose rule over another is anything but anarchic. In fact it is the inception of a new state.
majevska:I agree completely. As Stirner said "Might makes right. Indeed, one gets further with a handful of might than a bag full of right." Whether or not you think a society should be based on belief in inalienable rights, those rights become alienable as soon as you are incapable of defending them. This is where the natural rights people become religious; they say that their rights have not been alienated from them, but merely "violated." Of course, if this is the case then "inalienable," becomes a meaningless word and we see a clear disconnect between reality and belief. Perhaps the NR believer is too stuck in his beliefs to see how absurd it is to tell someone about to die that their rights are still inalienable; they will lose their life but keep their "right to life."
No one defending natural rights believe they are inviolable. No one. No one who believes in the right to live one's life simultaneously believes that murder is impossible. I repeat, no one. A right is a universal claim on what is moral. It's an ought not an is. Your arguing against a strawman.
majevska: 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.
I believe part of the point of PDA is that without people being forced to pay for protection they are less likely to demand things like that. People wouldn't view their PDA as a private state that would agress against people who are nonviolent. They would view it as an insurance agency unto itself only responsible for what it says it is. First of all, if one PDA decided to unilaterally attack the clients of another PDA who happened to be drug users or prostitutes or whatnot the other PDAs would have an incentive to fight the agressive PDA. The costs of waging said conflict would increase the costs of premiums and thus decrease the incentive for anti-drug, anti-prostitute PDA-users to stick with the company. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But by aligning incentives in the right way it's the most moral system out there for the natural rightser. And for the utilitarian who wishes for a cooperative, productive, proserpous and happy society. And for the argumentative ethicist who argues for consistency. And for some Egoists who demand that each man be allowed to live for himself without reference to others.
Now if you agreed to not engage in homosexual acts or do certain substances on the premises as a condition of your lease that would not be aggression or might makes right, but forbearance. That's just the right to exclude in action.
majevska: As Stirner said "Might makes right. Indeed, one gets further with a handful of might than a bag full of right." Whether or not you think a society should be based on belief in inalienable rights, those rights become alienable as soon as you are incapable of defending them. This is where the natural rights people become religious; they say that their rights have not been alienated from them, but merely "violated." Of course, if this is the case then "inalienable," becomes a meaningless word and we see a clear disconnect between reality and belief. Perhaps the NR believer is too stuck in his beliefs to see how absurd it is to tell someone about to die that their rights are still inalienable; they will lose their life but keep their "right to life."
majevska:Anyways, I'm digressing. The main point is that this is one of the points that the conservatives on this board see more realistically. Even if you are a strong believer in natural rights (in the "spiritual"-- not purely jurisprudential sense) I don't see how you can argue that there is at not a market for "protection of rights."
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Jon Irenicus: Wanting to impose rule over another is anything but anarchic. In fact it is the inception of a new state.
Who said anything about rule? No one is saying the PDF will try to establish a monopoly of criminality or law (hence it is anarchic), but only that it might aggress.
With the diversity of opinions here, if we had our own libertarian community, it is unlikely we could go more than 15 minutes without a rights dispute, simply by how many of us interpret and demand rights differently, and would be employing PDFs to enforce those positions. If Juan sees his rights one way, and demands his PDF to enforce those, is he an aggressor? Not that simple when the definitions are varied and muddied.
And hence, in my opinion, it would be anarchic because there would -=NOT=- be archy or monopoly on justice or criminality (the modern state is the defacto super criminal in our societies). Definitely not libertarian (with a focus on a notion like the NAP) but certainly anarchic in the diversity of action, effectiveness, ideas and means.
liberty student:My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but that some asshole is going to pay armed men to be his thugs.
And the state is always successful in preventing that now?
Indeed, the state turning vice into crimes as with the Prohibition and the Drug War tends to result in organized crime building up around those activities.
liberty student:It's very likely, if there is no monopoly on justice [sic] there will also not be a monopoly on crime sans the state.
The state just claims a monopoly, it's never fully able to enforce it and often in select circumstances doesn't even try.
By the way, when someone and his gang of thugs begins to impose persistent hegemonic power and authority over others, you start to leave anarchy as a new state arises.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Juan: laministacitus:That's true, but justice is a subjective thing and its definition changes as human conditions do. Whoa. Another clueless moral relativist ?
laministacitus:That's true, but justice is a subjective thing and its definition changes as human conditions do.
No, one who merely accepts the fact that my idea of justice isn't the one society accepts and that society has accepted many ideals of justice in the past; nice try with the ad hominem, though.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:And the state is always successful in preventing that now?
Did I claim it was always successful?
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Indeed, the state turning vice into crimes as with the Prohibition and the Drug War tends to result in organized crime building up around those activities.
Who said anything about vice?
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The state just claims a monopoly, it's never fully able to enforce it and often in select circumstances doesn't even try.
Of course not. But all petty thieves must compete with the state. When a state can no longer be the biggest criminal, it collapses.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:By the way, when someone and his gang of thugs begins to impose persistent hegemonic power and authority over others, you start to leave anarchy as a new state arises.
Sure. I haven't disputed this. Did you bother to read all of the entries in this thread by me, previous to the one you replied to?
Brainpolice: Hooked on the same mushrooms? Their philosophies significantly differ. Neitzche's egoism is a pluralist egoism, while Rand's is not, and his views on epistemology and metaphysics are almost in the entire opposite of Rand's.
Hooked on the same mushrooms? Their philosophies significantly differ. Neitzche's egoism is a pluralist egoism, while Rand's is not, and his views on epistemology and metaphysics are almost in the entire opposite of Rand's.
Yeah, thats right. Try to dazzle me with fancy words. They`re druggies. They get high. Thats what matters. Lets keep our eyes on the goaline, here. I said they take the same mushrooms. I didn`t say they get the same trips.
He's actually correct...
ryanpatgray:They are contradictory. This is like saying that the Earth is both experiencing manmade Global Warming and Manmade Global Cooling at the same time.
How is it contradictory to claim some believe the earth is cooling, while others claim it is warming?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
What has that aggression got to do with anarchy?
If a PDA begins aggressing individuals on their property or property of others not subject to that PDA. it is an aggressor no better than the state, plain and simple. Nothing "anarchic" about it except in the sense of anarchy instead of anarchism...
Defining anarchy as lack of a monopoly on coercion, even if providers of defense don't abide by the NAP, it's still anarchic since there is competition between providers of defense/ justice.
Unless you want to say that the moment an individual coerces another the society isn't really "anarchic".
Their actions are not. They're an outlaw/aggressor.
liberty student: Which is why the perfectly moral and righteous society you keep referring to might be best confined to robots and computers, which Asimov considered to be perfectly truthful to their programming.
Which is why the perfectly moral and righteous society you keep referring to might be best confined to robots and computers, which Asimov considered to be perfectly truthful to their programming.
Not really, Asimov`s robots in the end outgrew their programming to become know-it-all, law-onto-themselves, goal-justifies-the-means, I`ll-make-your-decisions-for-you-because-I-know-best, a-mayor-but-slow-motion-enviromental-disaster-on-planet-earth-will-be-good-for-humanity-whose-benefit-is-the-highest-virtue collectivists. He should have really been hung from a tree branch for his nonsense.
Jon Irenicus:PDAs that defend the right to initiation of aggression are outlaws. There is nothing libertarian about them. They deserve as much scorn as the state.
I think you miss the point I'm trying to make, perhaps I'm wording it badly.
My point is not that the insurance companies who stone gays and lynch blacks don't deserve scorn, for the same reason you'd scorn the state for doing the same. If you can't criticize competing providers of defense for initiating coercion it seems to me that you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the state. By my argument doesn't concern what ought to be, it concerns what is (or what will be). Your conception of justice may well be correct, I've not done the reading to debate that. The point is that insurance companies won't be run by Henry Veatch or Roderick Long, they'll be run by entreprenuers, and that means that they will strive to make a profit and nothing else.
The most you'll be able to do is criticize these individuals, or try to convince individuals to adhere to the teachings of Aristotle.
A good example is that of the middle aged, single man in a park who spends the day giving candy to kids while their parents aren't looking. Now if this individuals is seen walking off with a child into the distance you can be sure the parent of that child will step in, and more than likely that will involve coercing the middle aged, single man to quite a large degree. Now from the perspective of philosophy this man might not have violated anybody's rights, but no insurance company is going to support the behaviour of this man, they're going to turn a blind eye to the guy who put him in hospital because giving candy to kids isn't insurable behaviour. At the end of the day economics trumps philosophy.
Fortunately conflict is expensive and insurance companies will try to avoid it to stay competative, but that means that individuals whose conceptions of justice will most likely be informed by their cultural values not by reason will have every incentive, contrary to BP and others, to stay amongst those that share similar values and conceptions of justice, because otherwise they're going to have to pay, literally.
To put it in a more simple way: nobody is going to insure a black homosexual who is living amongst white, homophobic racists.
Jon Irenicus: Their actions are not. They're an outlaw/aggressor.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.
What's difficult to comprehend about it? They're trying to violate the rights of others, much like the state does. What's the point of calling the attempted imposition of rulership over others "anarchic"?
Jon Irenicus: What's difficult to comprehend about it? They're trying to violate the rights of others, much like the state does. What's the point of calling the attempted imposition of rulership over others "anarchic"?
I misunderstood, I took what you were saying to mean that should one try to impose their will on others the society is no longer anarchic, in which case I doubt we'll ever see anarchy. I believe what you were saying is that a PDA who behaved in such a way would not be conducting themselves in an anarchic manner. No?
True, and they don't have to; they're just remaining passive in this case. I'm referring to PDAs that actively aggress on behalf of their customers. There's nothing anarchic or libertarian about them. They're not even economically sensible. They'll just end up broke and be crushed as they deserve to be.
More or less.
Jon Irenicus: To put it in a more simple way: nobody is going to insure a black homosexual who is living amongst white, homophobic racists. True, and they don't have to; they're just remaining passive in this case. I'm referring to PDAs that actively aggress on behalf of their customers. There's nothing anarchic or libertarian about them. They're not even economically sensible. They'll just end up broke and be crushed as they deserve to be.
But if I'm one of those racist, homophobic white people and I decide to break the window of the black homosexual, or if I'm the father who breaks the ribs of the guy who is leading my child somewhere my PDA/ insurance company is going to turn a blind eye.
GilesStratton: But if I'm one of those racist, homophobic white people and I decide to break the window of the black homosexual, or if I'm the father who breaks the ribs of the guy who is leading my child somewhere my PDA/ insurance company is going to turn a blind eye.
It`s not your PDA you need to worry about it`s the black guy`s "PDA".
It can, and in that case its role is irrelevant. It'd only become an issue when its clients are subpoenaed or face retaliation from a PDA. But turning a blind eye wasn't what I had in mind anyway.
More than likely the black guy won't have a PDA, or if he does they'll tell him too bad, he shouldn't have moved in there in the first place.
Nerditarian:To clarify the point, if in San Francisco there were homosexuals who consented to the rules set up by the San Francisco PDAs and you lived in Utah where the Mormons are anti-homosexual(just an analogy) would it be exceptable for the Mormons to "demand justice" vis a vis their PDA's elimination of the San Francisco homosexuals? Of course we are assuming at this point that these PDAs/communities have not outcompeted eachother.
I'm not talking about whether or not it's acceptable. That's besides the point, no I don't think it's acceptable (nor necessary) for provider of defense to do that . The point is if they would make money from it, and if they could, they would do it.
GilesStratton: More than likely the black guy won't have a PDA, or if he does they'll tell him too bad, he shouldn't have moved in there in the first place.
Who is going to enforce this?
GilesStratton: Who is going to enforce this?
By "this" you mean property rights?
GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:They are contradictory. This is like saying that the Earth is both experiencing manmade Global Warming and Manmade Global Cooling at the same time. How is it contradictory to claim some believe the earth is cooling, while others claim it is warming?
It isn't but if you were to claim that those who were right would live and those who were wrong would die and that both would live - that would be.-
Marko: GilesStratton: Who is going to enforce this? By "this" you mean property rights?
What's your point?
ryanpatgray: GilesStratton: ryanpatgray:They are contradictory. This is like saying that the Earth is both experiencing manmade Global Warming and Manmade Global Cooling at the same time. How is it contradictory to claim some believe the earth is cooling, while others claim it is warming? It isn't but if you were to claim that those who were right would live and those who were wrong would die and that both would live - that would be.-
Good thing I never claimed that then.
GilesStratton: Marko: GilesStratton: Who is going to enforce this? By "this" you mean property rights? What's your point?
Marko:So who would enforce property rights of one black guy in a militantly racist neigbourhood? I don`t know.
And actually it is just hit me. There are many million of blacks in the USA.That means they don`t even need charity. Break a window of a black guy for racist reasons and you are going to have to deal with Black Panther PDA (or Crisps PDA) the next day.Isn`t it great that ethnic solidarity works both ways?
Marko:My point is we oppose the state because it does not uphold property rights, but instead violates them. A system that doesn`t uphold property rights isn`t worth having.
In which case you're a utopian. No system will ensure property rights will be protected all the time. Now, what mostrefer to people around here, incorrectly, call anarchism is the only system will prevent institutionalized violation of property rights and will provide the most adequate defense of property rights due to competition on their production.
Marko:So who would enforce property rights of one black guy in a militantly racist neigbourhood? I don`t know. But then I don`t know who is going to enforce the property rights that are currently under attack by governments either, do I?
Well, I'll give you a clue. The answer to the latter isn't libertarians, the answer to the former is nobody because it isn't economic to do so.
Marko:But probably they are going to be the same sort of people, no? These people called "anarchists"? The people who can`t stand injustice and violation of property rights?
"The anarchists" as you know them will always be an extreme minority, even without the state. In any case, these anarchists haven't done much more than post some videos on Youtube so far, so I wouldn't count on it.
Marko:I don`t know, maybe the black guy will go on national television and tell the nation of his plight and anarchist volunteers are going to flood to his house to protect him or hire some mercenaries to do it for them??
Perhaps, but not likely. In any case they'd run into an armed populace supported by their insurance company. So it's not a problem.
Marko:I mean, your scenario actually assumes the state has been destroyed. So if anarchists (belivers in property rights) are so strong, as to have been able to bring down the leviathan, surely they are strong enough to protect the property rights of this one black guy??
Anarchists won't bring down the state, entrepreneurs will outcompete it.
Jon Irenicus:What has that aggression got to do with anarchy?
That is what I am trying to figure out, because as I understand it, you associated the two, not me.
We will have aggression in libertarian societies. It won't be right, but it will exist. Unless one wants to contend that the reason for violent property rights disputes now is entirely due to the omnipresent state.
Jon Irenicus:If a PDA begins aggressing individuals on their property or property of others not subject to that PDA. it is an aggressor no better than the state, plain and simple.
I agree 100%.
Jon Irenicus:Nothing "anarchic" about it except in the sense of anarchy instead of anarchism...
Which was my point. Cheers.