General

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

communeofone — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:26:22 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

William — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:35:42 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

DD5 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:16:14 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

Lagrange multiplier — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:54:12 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

DD5 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:54:19 GMT

I call it barbarism

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:43:54 GMT

I call it interventionism

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

pentahedron — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:39:10 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

Joe — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:12:58 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

DD5 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:15:35 GMT

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...

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

Lagrange multiplier — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:51:19 GMT

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?

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

EconomistInTraining — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:04:20 GMT

Ideology sucks.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

DD5 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:41:21 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

Lagrange multiplier — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:18:37 GMT

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).

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

DD5 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:02:37 GMT

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.

Re: Required Nutrition Info on Foods

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:21:17 GMT

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.