jiriki:Yeah I never said "states" were perfect, not more than any other human organizations. But I'm here to question the people who think its in princple, wrong to force ethics by coercion.
Would you go and steal from rich people to help the poor? Including hurting or imprisoning those who don't comply? No? Then why do you support state goons doing this? What's ethical here?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Libertarianism and Austrian economics prove states to be not only "not perfect" but also inferior in every way possible.
In some quantifiable way? This is what I mean by arrogance by libertarians. Its like those abortion fanatics, who say their ethical position is superior to the other one.
I haven't defined ethics because ethics is a complex issue! I don't derive my ethical principles from anywhere. I think anti-abortion and pro-abortion stances have arguments on both sides, and I don't fanatically commit to either one. Luckily we have a democracy, so we don't have to have a war over it.
You are guided by doing only in defense way, but you still make exceptions for coercive intervention (example above). Some others make exceptions elsewhere.
jiriki:Yeah I never said "states" were perfect, not more than any other human organizations. But I'm here to question the people who think its in princple, wrong to force ethics by coercion. Would you go and steal from rich people to help the poor? Including hurting or imprisoning those who don't comply? No? Then why do you support state goons doing this? What's ethical here?
Would you support 9 families imposing their ethics on the last one? Yes? Then what is wrong with a state, which is just a tool of the majority, doing the same?
jiriki:Would you support 9 families imposing their ethics on the last one? Yes? Then what is wrong with a state, which is just a tool of the majority, doing the same?
How exactly could you "impose" ethics on someone? If you mean initation of violence (i.e. taking their property or beating them up until they agree), then no, I wouldn't support it because that's precisely what state does. However, they simply start shunning the family with different values or use some other non-violent methods - I don't see what's wrong with that.
Imposing ethics means making distinction between right and wrong, and acting accordingly. If they do something wrong, such as child abuse or have sex with minors you act accordingly. The act can be violent.
I will give you an example from David Friedman, suppose a man is going to shoot lots of people but there's a rifle nearby of a man who has said he will kill anyone taking the rifle. Would you take the rifle and shoot the madman. I would. That's how I would act in real life. Sometimes issues have to be explored by their merits and not some absolute rights. Its realism.
Mlee:Taxation IS theft.
Correction. Taxation is extortion.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
jiriki: And if people are coerced into giving all their funds for strangers, what is freedom then? What do you do with freedom if your daddy assaults you but the others are not allowed to intervene? For me freedom is not inexcusable.
And if people are coerced into giving all their funds for strangers, what is freedom then?
What do you do with freedom if your daddy assaults you but the others are not allowed to intervene? For me freedom is not inexcusable.
You make the fallacy of assuming that law is somehow magical. Without a government, people could still intervene...
jiriki: Saying that force is always immorral is an opinion too. You may see force always as immorral but to be honest, I don't think it constitutes a justice. Suppose ten families live on an island peacefully, each self-sufficient. Then its found out that one family tends to beat up kids regularly, or you can come up with some cruel abuse if you wish, and the question remains whether the others would be allowed to intervene? Some say that's the right way to grow up kids, others that its totally imoral child abuse? Which one is right? If the last one, are they allowed to intervene? Doesn't the family own the kids?
Saying that force is always immorral is an opinion too. You may see force always as immorral but to be honest, I don't think it constitutes a justice.
Suppose ten families live on an island peacefully, each self-sufficient. Then its found out that one family tends to beat up kids regularly, or you can come up with some cruel abuse if you wish, and the question remains whether the others would be allowed to intervene? Some say that's the right way to grow up kids, others that its totally imoral child abuse? Which one is right? If the last one, are they allowed to intervene? Doesn't the family own the kids?
Why would they intervene? Only because they think something is wrong with beating your kids, right? But isn't that just an opinion too? You may see beating kids as always immoral, but to be honest, I don't think it constitutes a justice.
jiriki:Imposing ethics means making distinction between right and wrong, and acting accordingly. If they do something wrong, such as child abuse or have sex with minors you act accordingly. The act can be violent.
There're societies where selling young girls as concubines (or younger wives) to older men is a common practice. You might find this despicable but the girls and their parents probably think it's a better alternative to starving. How would shooting everyone involved solve anything?
jiriki:I will give you an example from David Friedman, suppose a man is going to shoot lots of people but there's a rifle nearby of a man who has said he will kill anyone taking the rifle. Would you take the rifle and shoot the madman. I would. That's how I would act in real life. Sometimes issues have to be explored by their merits and not some absolute rights. Its realism.
This is just an individual action among many individual actions, what does that have to do with state's coercion of all of society?
What's realistic is that values are subjective. Under state, you'll have subjective values of one group imposed on everyone else instead of allowing different values to exist and issues to be resolved peacefully, if they arise.
@jiriki
What do you think of extortion? Do you think it should be legal?
What do you think about making laws to rule over people that do not have representation? Do you think slavery should be legal?
Is the law supposed to do anymore than resolve disputes between people? If not, then what is the purpose of law?
In some quantifiable way?
What does this even mean?
This is what I mean by arrogance by libertarians. Its like those abortion fanatics, who say their ethical position is superior to the other one.
No, it's denying the bullshit state apologists weave and take as granted.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student: Praetyre:I agree with you the terms "socialist" and "fascist" are thrown around too often, both in general and around here. That is because "there is no third solution". It's the market or the state (paraphrasing Mises)
Praetyre:I agree with you the terms "socialist" and "fascist" are thrown around too often, both in general and around here.
That is because "there is no third solution". It's the market or the state (paraphrasing Mises)
And yet appealing to Mises in such a context doesn't do you well here - since Mises defaulted to support for a minarchist state.
Brainpolice:And yet appealing to Mises in such a context doesn't do you well here - since Mises defaulted to support for a minarchist state.
It works just fine, I was giving attribution, not making an appeal to authority.
jiriki:Would you support 9 families imposing their ethics on the last one?
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."
If parents beat their children they are criminals - if you can't understand that, fine, but realize that the problem is your mental limitation, not libertarian ethics.
I never said beating children was allowed. You have completely missed my point.
Free market has become kind of a religion for libertarians. Never merits, only principles. You never care about social implications of your action. Some people have really lost the reality touch with the world.
Take for example that its illegal to pass by a man and not call an amublance, and then you call it coercion and slavery. Not only that's terrible ethics, but its a disgrace to millions of people that have been real slaves.
I guess you've never realized that in real-threatening situations demand is practicallly infinite, and doctors can fee excessive amounts of money. Or you believe that its no issue that health insurance companies work people to try to deny claims, because hey none of those people ever needed care, and if they did, they were just to stupid to take our health insurance, and stupid people deserve to die. Adverse selection or asymmetrical information - that's no problem!
But meh, I never should have posted about this, its like posting about atheism to a christian forum. Its not that anarcho capitalism is not possible, I'm just saying people should think more about the consequences of libertarian principles and if they represent their real-world ethics.
jiriki:What gives them right to define what is child abuse, animal abuse or consent age of sex and act on the last family depending on it?
Clearly logic which is an objective human trait. If I see a father beating a child and the child is screaming for help then I can defend such a child for in screaming for help, he/she is seeking an agent that will protect him/her from aggression. Animal abuse is a topic already covered in another topic here and obviously the age of consent for sex is when the individual develops an understanding of sex and decides to explore such actions for it is their body.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
jiriki: I will give you an example from David Friedman, suppose a man is going to shoot lots of people but there's a rifle nearby of a man who has said he will kill anyone taking the rifle. Would you take the rifle and shoot the madman. I would. That's how I would act in real life. Sometimes issues have to be explored by their merits and not some absolute rights. Its realism.
The example you gave has NOTHING to do with realism or reality. If there was a madman who's going to shoot a lot of people- why do you paint an unrealistic scenario where a man who has a rifle(since he owns one he probably knows how to use it better than you), would just sit there while chaos goes down? The rifle-owner would more than likely shoot the madman himself. I'm sorry but examples like these are just complete nonsense and don't prove anything.
jiriki: If parents beat their children they are criminals - if you can't understand that, fine, but realize that the problem is your mental limitation, not libertarian ethics. I never said beating children was allowed. You have completely missed my point. Free market has become kind of a religion for libertarians. Never merits, only principles. You never care about social implications of your action. Some people have really lost the reality touch with the world. Take for example that its illegal to pass by a man and not call an amublance, and then you call it coercion and slavery. Not only that's terrible ethics, but its a disgrace to millions of people that have been real slaves. I guess you've never realized that in real-threatening situations demand is practicallly infinite, and doctors can fee excessive amounts of money. Or you believe that its no issue that health insurance companies work people to try to deny claims, because hey none of those people ever needed care, and if they did, they were just to stupid to take our health insurance, and stupid people deserve to die. Adverse selection or asymmetrical information - that's no problem! But meh, I never should have posted about this, its like posting about atheism to a christian forum. Its not that anarcho capitalism is not possible, I'm just saying people should think more about the consequences of libertarian principles and if they represent their real-world ethics.
I dunno why you think the simple act of passing a law where its illegal to pass by a man and not call an ambulance will suddenly change people's ethics, it DOESN'T. If someone sees someone in pain, he will decide whether he wants to call an ambulance or not based on his own morals, not "Oh I better do it before I go to jail.".
Have you ever thought about the consequences of statist principals and how they cannot coexist with anyone's real-world ethics? The consequence of state coercion has lead to more death and pain than any silly example you're thinking of people not being compassionate.
PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE BECAUSE ITS THE "LAW". LIFE HAS NEVER WORKED THIS WAY.
It seems to me that people with your line of thinking either never heard of charity or just ignore it. Why don't you go and pay for people's healthcare who can't afford it with your own money? Why don't you get a group together of like-minded individuals to carry on these good deeds? Do you really believe the threat of imprisonment or death is the only way to help people?
For the madman scenario, in this case the owner of the rifle is not present, so you have to take this property and use it for greater good even though you have no permission. Its simple principles. Read the example from Friedman's page.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
For the ambulance, sympathy is irrelevant, since only human actions matter in this context. Now are you saying people are not being fined for not calling an ambulance? There would be no need to prohibit it, if everyone would do it, just like there would be no need to prohibit child abuse if everyone had the sympathy not to hit their child.
Yeah I see there's clearly no point of continue this discussion because you don't understand the principles I'm arguing against. Just keep on spamming capital letters. Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
jiriki: For the madman scenario, in this case the owner of the rifle is not present, so you have to take this property and use it for greater good even though you have no permission. Its simple principles. Read the example from Friedman's page.
Hmm it seems like there is no shortage of madmen and unclaimed rifles in your hypothetical situations.
Juan:Not at all. Miniarchism doesn't benefit 'society'. Firms competing for the defense of life and property do. Mises failed in his reasoning - I don't know why, but the cause of Mises flawed reasoning is irrelevant anyway.
Torsten:There is no reason to belief that a "security contractor" will be of better "service" or "nicer" then a small to medium state with limited government will be. So if anyone fails in their reasoning here, it's not mises, but the anarcho-capitalists.
What is the legitimate basis for you to establish such a government?
Torsten: Juan:Not at all. Miniarchism doesn't benefit 'society'. Firms competing for the defense of life and property do. Mises failed in his reasoning - I don't know why, but the cause of Mises flawed reasoning is irrelevant anyway. That statement is somewhere in the range from naive to ridiculous. Firms do not compete for "defense of life and property" they compete over profit or income opportunities. There is no reason to belief that a "security contractor" will be of better "service" or "nicer" then a small to medium state with limited government will be. So if anyone fails in their reasoning here, it's not mises, but the anarcho-capitalists.
Who operates a state or a private defense agency?
Anarchist Cain:What is the legitimate basis for you to establish such a government?
wilderness:Who operates a state or a private defense agency?
That might be indeed a more relevant question. But why not deal with the practical, real life issue at hand:
Will "security contractors" under anarcho-capitalism be a beter order then a minarchist order?
Torsten: wilderness:Who operates a state or a private defense agency? That might be indeed a more relevant question. But why not deal with the practical, real life issue at hand: Will "security contractors" under anarcho-capitalism be a beter order then a minarchist order?
Who practices the practical, any practical, in general?
Torsten:Will "security contractors" under anarcho-capitalism be a beter order then a minarchist order?
of course, like in any market. lets try to avoid 'special pleading'
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
Torsten:Firms do not compete for "defense of life and property" they compete over profit or income opportunities. There is no reason to belief that a "security contractor" will be of better "service" or "nicer" then a small to medium state with limited government will be.
The key difference is that firms can't tax their customers. So they will have more incentives to satisfy their customers when they have competition than an enforced monopoly of government does (not to mention the unlikelihood of branching out in other industries like education, etc.). The quality or "niceness" of the services is irrelevant (and it's all subjective, in any case).
Torsten:So if anyone fails in their reasoning here, it's not mises, but the anarcho-capitalists.
I don't get it. If you're against restricting competition in any other industry, why is law enforcement or dispute resolution any different?
Who cares? "good" is subjective. People as well as companies have different needs or wants. My husband loves $600 cell phone but I'll just go for the cheapest. We're both happy with our preferences. Would you advocate banning cheap cell phones and making only the most loaded available? Or vice versa?
All I care is that no one can steal my money and make it seem acceptable. Under anarcho-capitalism, choosing security services provider wouldn't be much different from shopping for a wireless plan. Or you could choose not to pay anyone at all, buy your guns and maybe even join a volunteer neighborhood patrol. Options would be abound.
jiriki: I don't derive my ethical principles from anywhere.
I don't derive my ethical principles from anywhere.
This is a very telling statement, and also a false one. Your ethical "principles" seem to be a collection of ad hoc emotionally-based preferences. Even emotional preferences are derived from the information one has absorbed subconsciously through one's education and experience, so you do get your ethical beliefs from somewhere.
Unfortunately, this ad hoc collection does not amount to a principle. Let's take your own example of punishing people for not calling an ambulance when passing an injured person. The only principle I can identify here is that one must render assistance to anyone in need. But how is need to be defined? What type of assistance must one render, and in what amount? Your example makes it seem fairly innocuous, as the subjective cost of the action of calling an ambulance is, to most people, very low. However, it's no logical distance at all between that and requiring people to render other sorts of aid, in greater amounts, and to those in lesser degrees of "need." There is no difference in kind between what you propose and full-blown socialism, there is only a difference of degree which admits of no objective measurement.
In the end, what you've actually done is to deny the existence of ethical principles at all. Ethics is simply what the majority wishes. I trust I don't need to provide examples of how that could go horribly wrong.
Regarding the problem of the family in which children are beaten: This issue can be addressed perfectly well by referring to the non-aggression principle. It need not be a case of the other families arbitrarily imposing their will. If the questions "Is violence being initiated?" and "Does the subject of said violence desire assistance in ending it?" can be answered in the affirmative, then the intervention of others is consistent with libertarian principles. The answers to those questions may sometimes be difficult to determine in practice, but that there may be difficulties encountered in adjudicating any particular case in the real world does not invalidate the principle.
My first impression upon reading the title of this thread was that it was most likely an argument based on the fallacy of the golden mean, and after reading the opening post, that seems a pretty sound impression. That something is "extreme" or "ideal" does not in and of itself make it incorrect.
Torsten:Is that an attempt to evade the practical question on how different forms of government or lack thereof would operate under real life circumstances?
No I'm asking by what legitimate authority you establish and sustain a government.
Natalie:"good" is subjective.
Eh I wouldn't go that far. What I mean to say there are objective 'goods' in the world. Like if I were to give you and your husband a vial of cure-all in which you would never be sick, have to worry about tooth decay or any genetic disorders, then that would be an objective good for both of you would it not? I think there is a line [ and I will admit that isn't always clear ] where objectivity ends and subjectivity begins.
Torsten:Firms do not compete for "defense of life and property" they compete over profit or income opportunities. There is no reason to belief that a "security contractor" will be of better "service" or "nicer" then a small to medium state with limited government will be. So if anyone fails in their reasoning here, it's not mises, but the anarcho-capitalists.
jiriki:But meh, I never should have posted about this, its like posting about atheism to a christian forum.
I guess you've never realized that in real-threatening situations demand is practicallly infinite, and doctors can fee excessive amounts of money.
Anarchist Cain:Eh I wouldn't go that far. What I mean to say there are objective 'goods' in the world. Like if I were to give you and your husband a vial of cure-all in which you would never be sick, have to worry about tooth decay or any genetic disorders, then that would be an objective good for both of you would it not? I think there is a line [ and I will admit that isn't always clear ] where objectivity ends and subjectivity begins.
I was talking in the context of market transactions. There's simply no way to predict people's choices with a hundred percent certainty. That's why entrepreneurship is risky, after all. What matters is that enforced monopolies don't have to concern themselves with people's demands as much since they don't have competition to worry about (or they do it inefficiently, see public education).
Juan:Too bad that you can't understand that monopoly doesn't work. You might console yourself with the though that Mises didn't understand that monopoly doesn't work either.
this struck me as a good point. perhaps Mises shaky monopoly theory , which has been revised by his peers and followers can in part explain his minarchism...
Natalie:I was talking in the context of market transactions. There's simply no way to predict people's choices with a hundred percent certainty.
Ok then I kind of agree with you more but not totally. I mean to say I agree that we cannot predict people's choices 100% but we can deduce what they are likely to buy [ food, water, shelter, clothing: Not individual pieces but something from this overall grouping ]
Still the preferences will differ. What's good for you is not the same for me. My point is: let the customers decide and providers adjust their offers accordingly, instead of one big monopoly forcing on you what they think is "good" and making you pay for it whether you want it or not.
If I may, this is why the subjective and objective gets confusing at times. It is objective that each person values (prefers).
Then you are making assumption that people are rational to make the clear choices. Kenneth Arrow and John Forbes Nash already proved that market is not perfect. I don't have to worry about being sold to slavery when accepting software agreements.
Just look at any health care industry, they hire people to deny claims. You are being totally naive if you are saying none of those people needed those treatments. Funerals will always be the most cost effective treatment. And when genetics get better, it will get easier to predict sickness, meaning if you can predict a sickness wih 90% accuracy, you will be paying 90% of the costs out of pocket. And that's no problem if you are rich and healthy but not everyone is. Consumer choice is nonsense in emergency situation. If you get a heart attack and some random guy drops you off to the nearest hospital, its up to a doctor how much he wants to charge, you will get the bill when you wake up, and hope its something "reasonable". There's no freedom of choice there. Some doctors have lost totally ethics in name of profits in this case.
For example in a car insurance, if the company denies claims, then its bad luck but nobody has to die. How many of you have been denied a life-saving treatment, hm?
If a demented person signs a contract giving all his property a to thug, there's no problem there because hey, its a freedom of contract. Nothing unethical there. It wasn't a fraud.
Almost nobody here thinks we are slaves. We're free to leave the country if we wish. Many people here live a long life, have wife and kids, and have fun in life. And in the second place, the whole argument that "state is a slavery machine" is absurd, some states act more and some states act less responsibly like companies. They are all human organizations just like companies. Just because they are funded by force, doesn't mean they would not exist if only voluntary payments were allowed. If 95% of the people support the existence of the state, first they could form, fund it by themselves and force 5% to fund it. They could just call it "State Ltd." to piss you off, because hey force was supplied by demand.
Its really an authority problem. Reminds me of some guys in the army.
haha very funny.