Economics Questions

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:08:00 GMT

What if you have no money to get transport to somewhere you want to go now? Often people ask for favors and it works most of the time.

You can always just walk there on public roads, though.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

MatthewM64 — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:46:13 GMT

I'd like to say that I think the original example constitutes a form of imprisonment. This would be a infringement on your basic liberties and is agression against you. A prison isn't a prison if you can leave, so you must be able to get through. Most importantly this example is bad because it is ridiculously unlikely to happen. It is important to show how these hypotheticals are very unlikely. It's not as if this is a major problem.

I also only think it is unreasonable to shoot a treaspasser unless there is reason to believe the treaspasser is dangerous. If someone comes on your propety waving a weapon of their own, then yes, shoot the intruder.

Similarly, what if for some reason i no longer had any money to pay the toll, would i be unable to travel across the country to either work or the grocery store? What would my options be? Would you be made to pay to walk down a sidewalk? What if i wanted to visit my relatives in the nearest city but couldn't afford it? Would this not be restricting my freedom?

A road toll, well you have to at least pay for fuel and your vehicle anyway. It's an odd question. You could ask a similar question today. What if you have no money to get transport to somewhere you want to go now? Often people ask for favors and it works most of the time.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:50:42 GMT

“You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property, but you can't kill them.”

I agree that this is unacceptable. Drop the last clause and you're good: “You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property"

I like your insurance example.

To the person who says to me that private courts will not work because of human self-interest, and proposes a government court system as the solution, I say that it is in fact his conclusion which does not take into account the self-interest which is inherent in all individuals.

In fact, self-interest is also pretty predictable, which is good. Furthermore, the court system today works not because there is some "law of phyics" in the constitution which says that it will work. It works because 1) the judges view themselves as the knights of justice and thus try to act unbiased 2) the "customers" believe in the justice system. Thus, we see that the whole situation now works on psychology anyway and that there are no black and white rules that the judges invariably follow.

nirvana fallacy

Accusations of nirvana in the argument of state vs. AnCap is always dubious to me (besides in the NAP sense), as nirvana addresses practical concerns which are essentially known in the state, while no one actually knows what AnCap would look like.

But yes, I agree with you. And don't worry, I also sometimes don't read the whooole thread (like in the emergence AnCap and pro-life threads). But good that you went back later and re-read it.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

JH2011 — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:20:09 GMT

I have read your exchanges. I should have done that first. Sorry for the trigger-happy response. I got too eager to respond to what I already read. I have tried to re-write my thoughts below but they aren’t as well thought-out as I initially thought they were. Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy is a book that goes more in depth on private courts/insurance companies.

I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation.

Ok, so we agree that “trespassing” is not the same in every instance, and thus it would be based upon a fallacy to force a broad law on people that says “You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property, but you can't kill them.”

I do mention the word reasonable, which is different under different circumstances. The example you gave is an appropriate circumstance under which the term "reasonable" would come into play. Is there a history of flag-hangers murdering the people? And so on.

… I myself am a bit unclear on this and would like to know how a system of appeals c/would work in AnCap (for example, going to another private court).

I tried to re-write the example below without the mistakes/vagueness it had before. The problem (one that you have both brought up) is: who defines “reasonable”? If you have a state-run law system that is funded via taxes and applies to everyone whether they like it or not, the state will define “reasonable.” But it’s a clear violation of the NAP. So let’s start to think about how it might work in the absence of a state. I’m not claiming to be an expert in this, but the idea of a privately run system of courts and insurance companies sounds very feasible to me now, and one of the ways I understand it is in the context of the example below.

Let’s consider a more specific “flagpole hanger” situation. A 60 year old woman is hanging on the flagpole outside the apartment of an NFL linebacker and expresses that she wants to slide down the pole into the window and walk out the front door. Instead, the NFL linebacker takes a firearm and shoots the woman. For simplicity, let’s assume this is all caught on video camera.

Government court system:

In the government-run court system, the government will go through their process to find out who did what “reasonably.” They may come to the conclusion that the NFL linebacker acted “unreasonably.” Then they will try to determine who is “rightfully” owed what, and who will be forced to pay what damages and/or go to which prison.

Private court solution:

Here is my insight as to how it would work without a government monopoly over the law. It’s not completely thought out and does not explain certain contingencies, but I think this could give you a first indication as to how it might work better than a government court system.

Supposing that there is no state, let’s assume the NFL linebacker entered into an agreement with an insurance company, call it Prudential. The agreement essentially says that Prudential will underwrite (vouch for) the NFL linebacker for certain liabilities/wrongdoings, up to certain amounts, under certain circumstances. The agreement would be very detailed, but of course we can assume that it does not have the hypothetical “flagpole hanger” situation written out as part of the agreement.

Now, after the “flagpole hanger” incident, the husband of the 60 year old woman who was shot by the NFL linebacker wants to receive monetary damages for what has happened. Let’s assume he and his wife have an agreement with a different insurance company, call it Metropolitan. He would contact Metropolitan and tell them that he “claims” a certain dollar amount for this incident. If it is determined from his agreement with Metropolitan that he is “covered” for a certain dollar amount under a situation like this, Metropolitan will contact Prudential and ask for that dollar amount in monetary damages from Prudential. Based on previous agreements between Prudential and Metropolitan, Prudential will analyze the situation and will pay Metropolitan the damages. Metropolitan will give the damages to the husband of the 60 year old woman.

Prudential will now re-examine the NFL linebacker as a client. They may raise his premiums, they may drop him as a client, they may rewrite his agreement, they may offer him a new agreement contingent upon his entering a correction facility for a certain period of time, etc.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that if Prudential refuses to pay the damages to Metropolitan, i.e. own up to previous agreements, other individuals and insurance companies will be less likely to do business with Prudential in the future. It will be difficult for Prudential to stay in business at all if they continue to build a track record like this.

This situation with private insurance companies is in agreement with the NAP. Government law and court systems are not.

Now, I’m sure it seems like I have taken a ton of things for granted, and for simplicity in this example, I have. I’m guessing the first reaction is “You don’t take into account how self-interested people are. Not everyone will behave in such a reasonable way.” And I think on the surface it seems like a valid concern. We could further explore the consequences of Prudential refusing to give monetary damages to Metropolitan. Or we could explore the consequences of Prudential refusing to work with/acknowledge Metropolitan at all, or the consequences of one of the individuals not having an insurance underwriter. But all that my be better addressed in previous or separate threads. But before even exploring those consequences it would go a long way for us to ask why those things were happening in the first place.

Either way, my response to those claims about self-interest is that I agree that people are always self-interested, however, I draw a different conclusion. I think that, because people are so self-interested, it is crazy to give them the power of a government official, who gets funding via force and is in a position to make very important decisions that affect other people’s lives without their consent. People do not become less self-interested upon becoming government officials. I think it is more logical to let self-interest (i.e. profit, the free market, individuals making their own choices for themselves) be the guide for individual behavior, rather than orders from a government official or system of government officials. To the person who says to me that private courts will not work because of human self-interest, and proposes a government court system as the solution, I say that it is in fact his conclusion which does not take into account the self-interest which is inherent in all individuals.

Also, defenders of government court systems typically fall victim to the nirvana fallacy, which would say that just because you can imagine something imperfect in a private court system, it does not mean that the government court system is therefore better. Comparing one of the concepts to perfection doesn’t get you anywhere. You must compare them to each other. And the more you compare private court solutions to government court systems, I think you will see that private court solutions are better than government court systems for the same reasons why private grocery stores, schools, hospitals, and post offices are better than government-run grocery stores, schools, hospitals, and post offices. Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy is a book that goes more in depth on this.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

ThatOldGuy — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:19:31 GMT

JH2011:
Wheylous, I must admit I have not read the entire exchange between you and ThatOldGuy.

Why don't you do that then. Wheylous and I have covered most of what concerns you bring up including the subjectivity of how to handle different violations of NAP and property rights.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:47:04 GMT

Do you really expect both owners of the apartments in both situations to come to the same conclusion about how to protect themselves and their property?

Yes, you did not read my previous posts:

I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation.

Also correct. And hence the court system. If you can prove "reasonable," you're fine.

I do mention the word reasonable, which is different under different circumstances. The example you gave is an appropriate circumstance under which the term "reasonable" would come into play. Is there a history of flag-hangers murdering the people? And so on.

Of course, the owner of the house could say you can get on the balcony but I will be holding a gun to your head. Or knife, or whatever.

As to your point, after your rhetorical question, I missed it. Perhaps my brain is currently muddled, perhaps you just didn't explain well. Could you state it in more concise terms?

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

JH2011 — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:49:31 GMT

Wheylous, I must admit I have not read the entire exchange between you and ThatOldGuy. But I have read your two first posts and I see some incorrect conclusions and confusion here. I describe the axiom which maximizes BOTH fairness and efficiency on this earth as: you can do whatever you want with your private property and towards protecting your private property, provided that you do not violate the private property of another individual. Below I try to explain why I think this axiom allows for the most fairness and efficiency possible.

Wheylous:

It is NOT alright for you to kill someone if he is merely trespassing. When someone is on your property they do not suddenly lose self-ownership. You may use reasonable force to get them off of your property, but you can't kill them.

… Hence, this violates libertarian principles anyway.

You make your statement as if “trespassing” means the same exact thing in every instance of “trespassing.” That is a fallacy which has lead you to incorrect conclusions. This is precisely why Walter Block offers the example: “Suppose the owner of the apartment on the 15^th floor has recently been victimized by a rape, perpetrated upon her by a member of the same ethnic or racial group as the person now hand walking his way down her flag pole, soon to uninvitedly enter her apartment.”

Let’s take Block’s example a little further… Let’s consider two examples. One, a 70 year old woman hanging on the flagpole outside the apartment of an NFL linebacker. Two, consider a 30 year old male of a certain race/ethnicity hanging on the flag pole outside the apartment of a 70 year old woman who was victimized by theft and physical abuse in her apartment a week earlier by a male of the same race/ethnicity and age range. Do you really expect both owners of the apartments in both situations to come to the same conclusion about how to protect themselves and their property? Let’s leave that rhetorical question for now. Let’s assume both owners of the apartments decide to take a firearm and shoot the person hanging on the flagpole, and the person is killed immediately.

And now let’s suppose that there is no state and that insurance/law agencies are allowed to do what they are really capable of doing… Let’s assume both the NFL linebacker and the 70 year old woman have private insurance/law companies defending them (defending them = underwriting them/vouching for them under voluntarily agreed upon circumstances in exchange for recurring insurance premiums).

The POINT IS THIS: the insurance company who underwrites the NFL linebacker and has an agreement with the NFL linebacker stating that, after an incident such as his flagpole incident, he must pay a certain percentage of the damages claimed (claimed by, say, the 70 year old woman’s family) and/or have his premiums raised because of this flagpole experience is probably going to remain in business because this displays a logical decision making process and can be displayed as a good track record for attracting future clients and other businesses to work with this insurance company. The insurance company who underwrites the 70 year old woman and has an agreement with the woman stating that, after an incident such as her flagpole incident, she must pay a certain percentage of the damages claimed and/or have her premiums raised because of this experience is probably going to go out of business very shortly because this displays a poor decision making process and would be very difficult to explain as a track record of protecting its customers, and thus will lead to difficulty attracting new customers.

Why is this relevant to the axiom??? Because what has really happened is that the individual has given the insurance company a kind of “joint-ownership” of his/her property, i.e. the fulfillment of the agreement that he/she entered with the insurance company which allows the insurance company to claim his/her assets under certain circumstances. This is ALL CONSISTENT with the idea that an individual has the right to do whatever he or she wants with his or her private property, so long as he/she does not violate another person’s private property.

And as you can hopefully see here, state-run monopolistic law agencies and insurance companies would fall victim to the same problems (decreased quality, innovation, efficiency, range of consumer selection) that arise from state-run monopolies in any industry, providing any good/service.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

ThatOldGuy — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 01:03:00 GMT

Wheylous:
To convince everyone of AnCap, you must convince them of NAP.

I saw a video today of Stefan Molyneux where he pointed out that, in their private lives, the majority of people already agree with the NAP. It's just that they don't apply it to the activities of the government (public life). So with their inconsistency and, as you said previously, the historical precedent of the state preceding the free market, it gives the state some credibility (although, it seems that most people are becoming more and more disillusioned with the government with each passing day, no matter who's in office). Molyneux has also estimated (citing the American Revolution as an example) that it takes about 150-200 years for libertarianism to fully be developed and take root to the mainstream. Molyneux estimated further that, since the Libertarian Party started in 1971, we're about 40 years into this.

Wheylous:
Statism doesn't sound a lot more viable to me...

Well in those terms, yeah.

Wheylous:
Consider my previous FDA example:

I've read that before and totally agree.

Wheylous:
What does "taking over" mean anyway, and how would it be different from the current statism?

My concern is that, during the transition, some other country/ group could invade. I don't know how long it would take for a 235 year old government to dissolve entirely. And I think, in what could be a very weak position at first, that that invading country/group could do a lot of harm to us.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 19:14:17 GMT

Yeah, I'd call myself minarchist and it's not really due to these boards but mostly to my studies in economics.

I myself was a minarchist about a month ago, as you, due to my own thoughts. I have now turned to AnCap through discussions on these boards, and, again, my own thoughts.

That would be a large hurdle which leads me to question it's viability

Au contraire, I do not find it that difficult. The beauty of AnCap is that to have the system, you need to convince everyone of the system. To convince everyone of AnCap, you must convince them of NAP. Thus, when the system does come into being (if you can call it a "system"; Clayton doesn't like this term), people will already have the principles needed to keep it going.

it's viability

Well, consider you arguing for statism to someone who has lived in AnCap their whole life:

Dude, we give all this power to one entity which makes all decisions. And it's not like everyone even agrees. If someone doesn't agree, we still impose it on them. The entity has power to take property from us even if we don't like it and it can put us away in prison. If we don't support its redistribution schemes, the best we can do is vote against them, and if we lose, we get our money taken. There are powerful interests which skew the decisions of the representatives, who don't 100% represent us. The representatives have to vote on thousands of issues but we only choose one for our district, so we compromise a lot. Even if this system were created with a great system of checks and balances, it is largely inflexible and doesn't allow other systems to exist. The best thing is, all of this is done for our own good, because our voluntary actions are not the best choice for us. It's legit.

Statism doesn't sound a lot more viable to me...

Another concern of mine would be the transition from the state to stateless without being invaded by another country or someone else taking control during the transition.

Consider my previous FDA example:

I have realized that part of the problem is that our frame of mind is still statist in a sense:

If we don't have the FDA, we will die of food poisoning. No. This is false. We would definitely have private entities regulating companies which voluntarily let them. Why? Because we want to. We know it's nice to have food inspection.

The same applies to an army. We know that armies are nice and that other people will try to invade us. Hence, in our own best interest, we will fund a private army (which may even be staffed by the same people it is staffed by today).

someone else taking control during the transition.

Again, to have AnCap we need to convince the people. A free people do not place chains on themselves easily (unless you look at 19th century America, but don't look!). What does "taking over" mean anyway, and how would it be different from the current statism? It seems like the problem would simply remain the same, and if we truly wanted the transition to AnCap, we would still continue it.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

ThatOldGuy — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:05:19 GMT

Yeah, I'd call myself minarchist and it's not really due to these boards but mostly to my studies in economics.

Wheylous:
As I have said before, this whole system is rooted in belief in the NAP. If the people don't believe in it, it won't work.

I came to that conclusion yesterday while thinking about it. That would be a large hurdle which leads me to question it's viability

Wheylous:
Some might be hesitant to take the state out of the equation, because we have some preconceived notion that the state is just, uncorrupt, or doesn't work for profit.

Another concern of mine would be the transition from the state to stateless without being invaded by another country or someone else taking control during the transition.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:02:28 GMT

While it seems that I learn something new about freedom and the state everyday, I'm not yet at anarchism.

These boards tend to do that to you. Would you consider yourself a minarchist? (minimal state limited to justice system, police force, and possibly army) I used to be one, but after lurking about here for about a month I gradually turned AnCap.

I have not read any anarchist texts. Do you know of a good introductory text?

There should be plenty mentioned around here. I will find the thread which lists a bunch.

Wouldn't this aggression invalidate there being a free market? Or is the principle at work that, because aggression is currently monopolized by the state, it is best to disperse that power amongst the players in the market so that they may economize on its use?

A truly free market (ie, no aggression) requires fiating the condition of "no crime." You cannot fiat conditions. We cannot say that people will not aggress. We can only try to organize a response to this aggression.

The question boils down to:

Do we want a state which forcefully collects taxes to apply some concept of justice (note that the state may try to minimize corruption in a multitude of ways) or do we want to have a system of private courts which not violate the NAP just by existence (no involuntary taxation) and which, through competition, might find better ways to execute justice.

Notice that the only difference between the two is that the state example has a monopoly (which could very well happen in the private case) on justice with the power to initiate aggression to collect taxes. So it boils down to: do we want to use some initiation of aggression of our own (thus inherently violating some rights) to support a monopoly, or do we want to let competing entities try different methods of ensuring transparency, due process, and justice.

When I put it this plainly (at least for myself), the choice becomes clear.

Some might be hesitant to take the state out of the equation, because we have some preconceived notion that the state is just, uncorrupt, or doesn't work for profit. Yet the state only appears just because it holds the respect of the citizens, because it has authority which has built up through its history of generally unbiased rulings.

So you see, we are the ones which give our current judicial system its gravitas and credibility, because it has proven itself. The same could happen in a free market, only that we don't need to forcefully collect the taxes. This means that either some people will decide to exclude themselves or that society will decide that justice is important enough to include even those people who do not pay.

I am sorry I cannot give you more details about this private court system, as I have not read any texts on it or had much time to ponder it. I still ask myself, for example "how do two people agree on a single private court?" "How does the appeals process work?" etc...

As I have said before, this whole system is rooted in belief in the NAP. If the people don't believe in it, it won't work. Currently, the system "works" because people are scared of state aggression.

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

ThatOldGuy — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:27:54 GMT

Wheylous:
Lack of a state monopoly on initiation on aggression.... All functions that it currently provides would be privatized. Including courts, police, and army.

Wouldn't this aggression invalidate there being a free market? Or is the principle at work that, because aggression is currently monopolized by the state, it is best to disperse that power amongst the players in the market so that they may economize on its use?

While it seems that I learn something new about freedom and the state everyday, I'm not yet at anarchism. I'm not denying anything yet, though, given that I have not read any anarchist texts. Do you know of a good introductory text?

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:08:16 GMT

I don't know what is meant by Anarcho-Capitalism.

Lack of a state monopoly on initiation on aggression. Essentially, no "state." All functions that it currently provides would be privatized. Including courts, police, and army.

do you mean to end the state, period

This.

But if enough cases arise where the trespasser in question is violent, then the market may choose killing as a means of self-defense at one point;

Generally, yes. As in, it would become "reasonable" to shoot the guy if statistically the guy would go on to harm/kill you.

I don't see that there will be a market determined "end" of choosing killing vs. some other variant of force. I think the ratios will always be in flux.

I agree. Because "reasonable" is different at different times.

I know that I'm the one who said it, but would that mean that it isn't open to third party interpretation? Meaning, you and I can't say that the defendant in question was "wrong" or "right"?

I myself am a bit unclear on this and would like to know how a system of appeals c/would work in AnCap (for example, going to another private court).

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

ThatOldGuy — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:50:32 GMT

Wheylous:
Note that for AnCap to exist, we would need to abolish the current government.

I don't know what is meant by Anarcho-Capitalism. By current government, do you mean that we would have to end state interference with the market or do you mean to end the state, period?

Wheylous:
How do you make it non-free? Force. Force = aggression.

I don't advocate for unprovoked force. I probably should have worded that first quote better. What I meant was that people choose how to defend their property in a given situation. For instance, I would not shoot that flag holder provided all he did was walk through my apartment and out of my life. I think that because I have allowed him into my home it is a mutual exchange (he keeps his life and I go guilt free). If he does walk through, peacefully, I think he is showing the utmost respect for my property and that is where I disagree with Block.

But if enough cases arise where the trespasser in question is violent, then the market may choose killing as a means of self-defense at one point; that is, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the market will decide. If it that happens as a result of ignorance of the NAP, then it will mean that they are not being killed in self-defense. If they are being killed in self-defense, then it is because people are rightfully asserting their right to self-ownership. I don't see that there will be a market determined "end" of choosing killing vs. some other variant of force. I think the ratios will always be in flux.

Wheylous:

I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation.

Also correct.

I know that I'm the one who said it, but would that mean that it isn't open to third party interpretation? Meaning, you and I can't say that the defendant in question was "wrong" or "right"?

Re: Property Rights to the extreme

Wheylous — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:22:26 GMT

If the free market is left to decide, it can't be ruled out that the market will choose killing a man.

Note that for AnCap to exist, we would need to abolish the current government. How would that happen? By educating people about the NAP. Tuhs, there is the chance that the post-state society already values the NAP.

It's true that it might not. But what is the alternative? A non-free market? How do you make it non-free? Force. Force = aggression. Hence, by not having the free market you are already instituting a violation of the NAP.

If I hear a noise in the middle of the night and see a figure in the next room with a firearm in hand, I'm going to incapacitate him and kill him if I have to in order to protect my family and my property. The fact that he has a firearm both threatens violence and suggests that he disregards my rights to self-ownership as well as my family's of their respective rights to self-ownership.

100% correct.

I think the subjectivity of how to defend the property in question changes with the situation.

Also correct. And hence the court system. If you can prove "reasonable," you're fine.

The thing about the flag-holder is that he is not threatening you.