Political Theory

Re: State and PDA...

wilderness — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:59:47 GMT

AJ:
By objective I just mean "right or wrong without reference* to any purpose," i.e., not "right for this purpose" or "wrong for that purpose," but (apparently) just "right" or just "wrong." In other words, "right" and "wrong" divorced from any notion of purpose. Please understand that I am not here critiquing the idea that something can just be "wrong," but that is what I mean when I use the objective/subjective contrast.

See JackSkylark? Void of anything; in relation to nothing. AJ's on a tangent. It's a red herring.

*edit: my underline and bold

Re: State and PDA...

AJ — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:57:23 GMT

By objective I just mean "right or wrong without reference to any purpose," i.e., not "right for this purpose" or "wrong for that purpose," but (apparently) just "right" or just "wrong." In other words, "right" and "wrong" divorced from any notion of purpose. Please understand that I am not here critiquing the idea that something can just be "wrong," but that is what I mean when I use the objective/subjective contrast.

If there is a better term for what I mean, let me know and I will consider using it.

Re: State and PDA...

wilderness — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:55:39 GMT

JackSkylark:

wilderness:

AJ,

you're objective/subjective paradigm is a red herring

Why?

excellent question! Since you asked, objective and subjective are void concepts unless related to something. And what do they relate to? Is peace, liberty, and justice AJ wants? I don't know since he only talks about objective and subjective. So he's on a tangent.

Re: State and PDA...

JackSkylark — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:52:35 GMT

wilderness:

AJ,

you're objective/subjective paradigm is a red herring

Why?

Re: State and PDA...

wilderness — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:44:52 GMT

AJ,

you're objective/subjective paradigm is a red herring

Re: State and PDA...

AJ — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:09:55 GMT

Sage:

AJ:
In other words, who gets to define rights? Who gets to define aggression?

People who have Ph.D.s in philosophy, that's who.

In other words, "objective ethics." This (and that whole article) talks past anyone who doesn't accept that there are objective standards of right and wrong, such as anyone who says actions can only be right or wrong for a given purpose. I think we're at an impasse.

Re: State and PDA...

Esuric — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:15:19 GMT

Htut:

Such as?

Anything that operates based on ownership and principles of command, such as a baking club.

Like?

Anything that involves private ownership protection and rules for governing disputes, and enforcing them.

Explain.

Anything which alters the ownership and control of physical resources is economically redistributive. Like taxes, the enforcement of any particular property boundaries involves the use of violence to prohibit others from using such resources.

True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.

I would argue that it is more fundamentally non-voluntary than aggressive. It seems to me that the line of aggression as an abstract concept is rather hard to draw.

That’s great, but before we render words like “voluntary,” “coercion,” and “violence” entirely meaningless, let’s examine the facts:

Employer “A” terminates his contract with worker “B” because the latter’s wage is not justified by his/her current productivity. Likewise, worker “B” may terminate the contract with employer “A” because the remuneration to worker “A” is not on par with his/her productivity. Now, if Employer “A” was told that this contract is nonnegotiable, and in fact permanent, he/she would certainly never voluntarily agree to it. But, on the other hand, employer “A” may agree to certain stipulations, such as, “if the employee’s productivity increases, he/she will not receive increased remunerations, and if the employee’s productivity declines, then he/she may not be terminated.” But, most contracts between employers and employees are negotiable, and both parties can exit them at will. Voluntary economic transactions are not "redistributive," in the sense that there is a proportionate transfer; but rather, both parties gain, which is why they partake in exchange (value is purely subjective).

But you're right, the grocery store is not free from violence and coercion, since the state forces employers to terminate employees through government mandated minimum wage laws. Unfortunately, there is no contract with the state—every action is violence, done without consent. Aggression is only abstract and difficult to define for the statist, for obvious and self-serving reasons.

Re: State and PDA...

Sage — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:16:54 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
The minarchist is, by giving these scenarios, attempting to find a reason some aspect of the state should exist. The scenario may be reasoned away, but to simply say they shouldn't bring it up is to say there can be no valid arguments... which you may believe, I'll grant. However, simply telling everyone who disagrees with you not to speak doesn't make you right, nor will they accept you as right until you have addressed their concerns.

I posted a reply to this here.

Re: State and PDA...

Sage — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:18:35 GMT

AJ:
In other words, who gets to define rights? Who gets to define aggression?

People who have Ph.D.s in philosophy, that's who.

Re: State and PDA...

AJ — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:57:53 GMT

Sage:

Htut:
Whatever the case, if we are not to be robbed by every ne'er-do-well we must have institutions of organized violence. To use it as a definition of the state leaves us with the problem of wide-spread systematic violence in any social organization, just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence.

True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.

Well, property under the State is based on initiatory violence, or at least it's impossible to say that de facto property rights as we have them now are really based fully on defensive violence. (Ex: Most people don't own a gun.)

Also, it depends on who gets to define what is initiatory and what is defensive. In other words, who gets to define rights? Who gets to define aggression? The State has a NAP. To a devout statist, all state violence is defensive (by definition). So I find these words a little less than elucidating.

Re: State and PDA...

Htut — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:57:20 GMT

Such as?

Anything that operates based on ownership and principles of command, such as a baking club.

Like?

Anything that involves private ownership protection and rules for governing disputes, and enforcing them.

Explain.

Anything which alters the ownership and control of physical resources is economically redistributive. Like taxes, the enforcement of any particular property boundaries involves the use of violence to prohibit others from using such resources.

True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.

I would argue that it is more fundamentally non-voluntary than aggressive. It seems to me that the line of aggression as an abstract concept is rather hard to draw.

Re: State and PDA...

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:40:24 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
BTW, how do I quote someone?

It might be a browser problem. But when you reply there is a little blue "qoute" link at the bottom of the text you are replying to. You can highlight any text in the original and click the qoute link.

Re: State and PDA...

Aster_Lacnala — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:34:59 GMT

I notice minarchists often argue against anarchism by asking how some specific scenario would be dealt with under anarchy, and then, unconvinced by the response, conclude that anarchy is undesirable or absurd. But these types of questions are irrelevant: the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.

Unless the minarchist can come up with a reason why the legal system should be excepted from this rule, they have no choice but to abandon statism and accept anarchism.

The minarchist is, by giving these scenarios, attempting to find a reason some aspect of the state should exist. The scenario may be reasoned away, but to simply say they shouldn't bring it up is to say there can be no valid arguments... which you may believe, I'll grant. However, simply telling everyone who disagrees with you not to speak doesn't make you right, nor will they accept you as right until you have addressed their concerns.

BTW, how do I quote someone? There isn't a button above for it. Do these support some form of markup?

Re: State and PDA...

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:29:59 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
So now these two suddenly tyrannous PDAs have a monopoly on customers in a geographic area. It might look rather patchwork, depending on their customers before they went tyrannous, or perhaps they might, in their agreement, trade territories to become contiguous and thus reduce costs. But they have become states in all but how they refer to themselves.

<history newb>As has happened to create our current states right?</history newb> But seriously a requirement for a free society is universal armament, that is, every man woman and child bearing arms. Ok FINE maybe not children... but damn they should get sling shots or something. In conclusion when MARS comes to your house, I hope they bring an army with them considering that you have a fmg 50 cal machine gun ready for them.

Re: State and PDA...

Sage — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:08:45 GMT

Regarding these "how would X work under anarchy" threads, I think this is relevant:

Sage:

Remember, the fundamental issue is competition vs. monopoly. Monopolies are inherently rights-violating (and hence are immoral) and face information and incentive problems (and hence are inefficient). Markets, on the other hand, can exist without aggression and have a more effective incentive structure. Therefore, a competitive legal system is preferable to a monopolistic one.

I notice minarchists often argue against anarchism by asking how some specific scenario would be dealt with under anarchy, and then, unconvinced by the response, conclude that anarchy is undesirable or absurd. But these types of questions are irrelevant: the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.

Unless the minarchist can come up with a reason why the legal system should be excepted from this rule, they have no choice but to abandon statism and accept anarchism.

Htut:
Whatever the case, if we are not to be robbed by every ne'er-do-well we must have institutions of organized violence. To use it as a definition of the state leaves us with the problem of wide-spread systematic violence in any social organization, just as all actions are redistributive all property is violence.

True, most or all social institutions ultimately come down to violence (usually self-defense). But the crucial point is that the State is the organization of initiatory violence, i.e. aggression, whereas something like property is based on defensive violence.

Htut:
To use the definition of the state-as-violence as an argument against the state is ineffective, since it is only the claim that the state is wrongful violence that is in dispute, not that the state (along with many other organizations we would consider lawful) are violent, potentially more violent than the state.

Well, some people are so deluded as to think that the State is a voluntary organization, so it's important to keep hammering on this point. (Incidentally, people who think the State is voluntary usually also give a public goods justification for government, but they don't see the contradiction.) Before you can argue that the State's use of violence is wrong, you first have to establish that the State uses violence.