Economics Questions

Re: On Tacit Contracts

Autolykos — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:53:08 GMT

DarylLloydDavis:
A closer reading of my post would have yielded this short, clear statement.

The Social Contract is not a valid contract; but it is nevertheless an enforceable contract.

This is just repeating what you already wrote. I read it already. My point was that you're combining normativity and descriptivity in that statement. In other words, what you repeated above contains two contextually-different phrases, namely:

1. Normative statement: "The Social Contract is not a valid contract."

2. Descriptive statement: "The Social Contract is nevertheless an enforceable contract."

Now, as far as I can tell, Wheylous was not using the word "enforceable" in a descriptive sense - he was using it in a normative sense. So for you to use it in a descriptive sense is not to address his claim at all.

To put it another way, and more generally: it's one thing to say that something can be done if there's sufficient power to do it. It's another thing entirely to say whether it should be done regardless of there being sufficient power to do it.

DarylLloydDavis:
It's your statement. If there's meaning to it, please explain: How does it refute the simple statement I made? Where did I mention entitlement? If one does not have a right to life, and to act in defense of one's life, then all other rights are void by extension.

You seemed to be equating "right to life" with "right to survival". I don't consider those to be one and the same. A person's survival can be affected by many impersonal forces and events. A person's survival can also be affected by how much help he receives from others - or whether he receives any help at all. The classic example here is that of a homeless man in the street. If you're claiming that a homeless man has a "right to life", and by that you mean a "right to survival", then I think it follows for you to consider it legitimate when the homeless man steals food. In fact, not only would that be legitimate, but it would be illegitimate for anyone to not give the homeless man food.

DarylLloydDavis:

Explain to me what you mean by "imperative" and exactly how survival constitutes one.

Really?

Yes, really.

DarylLloydDavis:
Actually, I said IF "..the control of limited resources cannot be maintained absent a limited state system...." And I used that conditional formulation, because I wanted to leave open the possibility that control could be maintained without a state system, but that so far it has not been--at least not in the modern world--or not for long.

True, you did say "if" in the beginning of that sentence. Maybe I misinterpreted your meaning behind it - it seemed to me like the use of "if" was either syllogistic or purely rhetorical. In other words, in spite of using a hypothetical phrasing, you sounded certain that it's literally impossible to control limited natural resources without a "limited state system". But instead of going around and around about what you really meant, I hope to clear things up by asking you directly: do you believe or claim that it is literally impossible to control limited natural resources without a "limited state system"? Why or why not? Please note that this question is outside of any historical context.

DarylLloydDavis:
I don't mind explaining away an honest misinterpretation. But when one is immediately followed by another, and all with a snide tone, I can't help suspecting that the other person isn't interested in giving a fair hearing or providing a thoughtful response. I also suspect that you begin a reply to the post, sentence by sentence, without entirely reading through it first.

If I've had a snide tone with you at all, I'd say it's because you've had one with me first - and also with others in this forum. Rest assured, however, that I do typically read an entire post before responding to it. If you take offense to me responding to your points with such a fine level of granularity, that's your problem, not mine. Don't expect me to change my behavior there.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:57:13 GMT

Thanks, Wheylous.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

Wheylous — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:36:15 GMT

For all too many that's no easy guidepost. Do min/ancaps both believe in the legitimacy of judges, juries and jails?

I doubt that this would be a large problem...

Of course we believe in the legitimacy of a judicial system Ancaps do not advocate one run off of expropriated funds (taxes), however. And neither do some minarchists.

On juries... um... idk. The market will decide :P

On jails... I think that many AnCaps do not believe in jails but in restitution and ostracizing. I haven't thought much on this issue, but it does appear to me that jail is an inherently collectivized institution that places society above the individual - because a criminal might pose a threat to society, then society has a right to jail him. This I don't like.

Do you believe that Ron Paul is the former or the latter?

Oh gosh. There's been a topic on this before. I am not sure which he is. He is likely a minarchist who is not averse to slowly breaking down even the minarchy. Of course, I believe that if a society is willing to go minarchist, AnCap won't be far removed and would be the logical next step.

And do you object to voting, yourself--for him, or at all?

I do not think that I'm against voting in general. By itself, putting people in power doesn't lead to abuse of power. For example, I doubt that electing JJ or Clayton would increase the size of government.

That being said, you have to be careful for whom you vote. Voting for RP is fine because I do not foresee him expanding the powers of the federal government. In fact, he has contributed enormously to the liberty movement and would likely do so even more.

I guess that I might also vote for Johnson if I have to. It's not the best, but it is certainly a move toward decreasing violence.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:19:39 GMT

Wheylous

you have to use reason

For all too many that's no easy guidepost. Do min/ancaps both believe in the legitimacy of judges, juries and jails?

According to minarchists, yes. Not according to Anarcho-capitalists like myself, though.

Do you believe that Ron Paul is the former or the latter? And do you object to voting, yourself--for him, or at all?

Re: On Tacit Contracts

Wheylous — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:49:02 GMT

that still leaves the question of whether one is free to take any threat literally

You can't kill your friend if he's playing with you and happens to say, "oh man, I'll kill you." So yes, you have to use reason to establish whether a threat was meant seriously or not. I don't think this should be too difficult or prevalent anyway...

And I wonder whether astate has the right to act in its collective self-defense, according to libertarian principles.

According to minarchists, yes. Not according to Anarcho-capitalists like myself, though.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

gocrew — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:41:00 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
I dare say every article of Kinsella's that I read which brushed on the topic began with a reminder that Rothbards 'title transfer' theory of contract is superior to other formulations (chiefly the 'promise theory') so I must say I'm suprised at this statement.

He's very much in favor of title transfer. It's the wording issue where he parts with Rothbard. Rothbard was a stickler for making sure everything is worded correctly; Kinsella says, correctly, that the wording is not as important as whether an agreement was reached.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

DarylLloydDavis — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:58:08 GMT

nirgrahamUK

I definitely asked the right person about the quoting function. Thanks a second time. I'll try it later: I'm tech-challenged.

But I still don't believe it's sufficient to leave the term "credible" to the eye of the beholder, so to speak. And I wonder whether a state has the right to act in its collective self-defense, according to libertarian principles.

Wheylous:

I agree with Ron Paul that Israel ought to sink or swim on its own--that no country should receive our yearly financial support. I was apparently under the false impression that Paul completely sided with Iran against Israel, though; and I wondered how Iran's threats against Israel changed the equation, in the context of libertarian idealogy.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

Wheylous — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:32:41 GMT

Daryl - look at the causal chain. Why might other nations be angry at Isreal?

Re: On Tacit Contracts

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:32:16 GMT

About Quoting :

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18184.aspx

but I mostly typed the quote blocks directly use square blocks with no spaces and the word quote
[ quote user = "someone that said something" ]some text someone said [ / quote ]

DarylLloydDavis:
But that still leaves the question of whether one is free to take any threat literally

no we covered that it has to be credible already ...

Re: On Tacit Contracts

DarylLloydDavis — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:24:44 GMT

Just for you Daryl

You're good. That answers that. I must have been listening to the liberal characterizations of his positions. But that still leaves the question of whether one is free to take any threat literally; or if a duty to weigh the probabilities of its being carried through is required. (By the way, how do you quote in this forum? Sorry, newbie.)

Re: On Tacit Contracts

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:13:12 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media) Just for you Daryl

Re: On Tacit Contracts

DarylLloydDavis — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:06:30 GMT

Glad to hear it. I don't consider myself a libertarian; but the way Ron Paul talks, one might conclude that Israel doesn't have the right to take the Iranian leader's threats to wipe it off the map seriously. But at what point is a threat a "credible" threat? And who gets to decide that issue?

Re: On Tacit Contracts

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:50:39 GMT

DarylLloydDavis:
If many libertarians believe that speech does not constitute an initiation of aggression and therefore does not justify retaliatory aggression, does this mean that one does not have the right to take a death threat seriously--to wrest a knife from another hand, or to shoot first? That would be a pretty dysfunctional interpretation of liberties.

The relevant note here is that

Speech is (generally) nonaggressive

this is allowing for the fact that a threat when credible is to be interpreted as an aggressive act, an initiation of aggression.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

DarylLloydDavis — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:47:55 GMT

http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_2.pdf

--------------------

To many—even to many libertarians—it seems elementary and

obvious: if you promise to do something, you may be forced to do it.

Some libertarians and laymen assume that an individual has some power

or ability to legally “bind” or obligate himself by simply promising to

do something. However, this assumption is groundless. Not all promises are enforceable, nor should they be.

I started reading that PDF and a question occurred to me when I read this:

It is impermissible to use force in response to non-invasive actions,

since this would itself be initiated force. Speech is (generally) nonaggressive, for example, because it does not invade others’ property

borders, so it does not justify the use of responsive force.

If many libertarians believe that speech does not constitute an initiation of aggression and therefore does not justify retaliatory aggression, does this mean that one does not have the right to take a death threat seriously--to wrest a knife from another hand, or to shoot first? That would be a pretty dysfunctional interpretation of liberties.

Re: On Tacit Contracts

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:15:50 GMT

http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_2.pdf

--------------------

To many—even to many libertarians—it seems elementary and

obvious: if you promise to do something, you may be forced to do it.

Some libertarians and laymen assume that an individual has some power

or ability to legally “bind” or obligate himself by simply promising to

do something. However, this assumption is groundless. Not all promises are enforceable, nor should they be.