tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post9101421659240699700..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The fundamental contradiction of libertarianismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger196125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77711739917724591112013-01-22T19:11:43.806-05:002013-01-22T19:11:43.806-05:00I think you have a binary view of libertariansI think you have a binary view of libertariansFreeSmarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464649774311240775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64425783794492145042012-08-14T17:27:41.501-04:002012-08-14T17:27:41.501-04:00@ciceronianus They are more similar than you may r...@ciceronianus They are more similar than you may realize:<br /><br />You work for your employer in exchange for money. You pay taxes in exchange for police, courts, fire departments, roads, etc.<br /><br />You can be fired for breaking a rule. You can be deported for breaking a law.<br /><br />You can quit a company. You can emigrate from the country.<br /><br />Both buying stock in your company and paying taxes entitle you to a vote on who represents you.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06411541143754215856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65520549468332841972012-08-04T19:04:16.398-04:002012-08-04T19:04:16.398-04:00Hi Jim,
For any action, there's an empirical ...Hi Jim,<br /><br />For any action, there's an empirical question as to whether it achieves its objectives or not. If unintended negative consequences of an intervention exceed its intended positive consequences, I would certainly oppose it. Your argument goes a step further though, by stating either that it's impossible for a government action to have net positive consequences, or that even if a government intervention has net positive consequences, it's still immoral. I don't really understand that.<br /><br />As an example, imagine a town that has a terrible problem with poisionous snakes. Every month 25% of the population dies from snake bites. All the townsfolk are preoccupied with living their lives and don't do anything about the snakes, until the mayor decides to issue an edict saying that everyone must either join the fight against the snakes or be forcibly jailed for a month. 95% of citizens join the fight, but 5% are anarchists and refuse and are jailed. Three days later, the town has killed all the snakes; a month later, the anarchists get of of jail; no one dies from snakes any more; and the ecosystem suffers no serious consequences from snake absence.<br /><br />Now, you can argue that this is an unreasonable scenario--that in most cases, government solutions are not as effective as market solutions--which I'd readily agree to. But in this hypothetical, did the mayor act morally? The consequences of the government intervention are positive for everyone--even the anarchists who lose a month of liberty but gain years of lifespan.<br /><br />What you've said so far leads me to think that even given these very positive results, you still object to the mayor's behavior, on the grounds that it violates the non-aggression axiom. I don't really get that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60208451001037462882012-08-02T13:10:53.656-04:002012-08-02T13:10:53.656-04:00Sorry,
One other thing I wanted to mention that ...Sorry,<br /> One other thing I wanted to mention that did not get discussed because it has little to do with my framework but should be considered in yours is the issue of economics or Praxeology or Human Action or whatever you choose to call it.<br /> That even if we agreed on utilizing coercion of the state to force the stranger to untie the man in trolly #1. Even if it were somehow true that this coercive force was altruistic or somehow could be made of men that have a higher morality than the men of society (and I'm not sure why one would believe this) but even if it were all perfectly true. One still has the problems of economics or human action.<br /><br />That is making this law and coercive force does not prevent men from demanding money to untie.<br /><br /> That this was as synonym for the welfare state, the evidence of this action has not made a smaller welfare state. Or reduced the amount or percentage of people needing and wanting to live in this state. It has massively expanded it. <br /> Economics is truly a value free science. And saying we will do X or Y does not mean the wanted result occurs. In fact it is impossible to have any idea of the result of X or Y and measure the good vs bad that was occomplished.<br /> For example: minimum wage laws or any price control. We have no way of measuring the actual damage or bad vs good that was accomished. <br /> I would argue that the negative of coercive action always creates a larger negative (regardless of prospective or framework) and depending on what it is, you might argue it is positive. But neither of us can offer quantifiable data or proof, but only qualifiable. <br /> But the evidence shows us that the outcome is completely unpredictable. Why has the number of people living in poverty increased massively the more we try to use your state to fight poverty? <br /> Would you choose to say the actions of the state are not responsible for this? That had we not created these welfare programs then it would actually have even been worse?<br /> Then there is no amount of damage that will prove that welfare increases poverty?<br /> I think through economics we can deduce the reasoning for this. (ie: if you reward people for not being productive, you will get more people not producing). The view of the statist or interventionist is not just immoral because of my argument throughout this thread. It is immoral because it does not achieve the goals that it set out to and actually makes the problems it sets out to fix, much worse. It is not a question of intent. I have no doubt your intent is to make people untie others for free. It that when the result is that you create 10X more trolly accidents than there used to be because everyone knows they can not maintain their trolleys because others will bail them out at gun point. So they stop repairing their trolleys all together. <br /> Economics stands like a wall or mountain in the way of the statist goals. It is a reality of Unintended consiquences that the statist ignores.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41082358848930382332012-08-02T06:52:17.173-04:002012-08-02T06:52:17.173-04:00I actually found you to be particularly honest wit...I actually found you to be particularly honest with definitions, which I usually don't get from people with a statist view. <br /> Usually if I call taxation is "theft" then I'm framing the debate and it ends there and If try to debate these very definitions, people will not accept a rational argument or rebut with anything.<br /> People like to assign seperate definition to actions of the state than if it were actions of a person or business. You did not try and do that and let the same definitions that you would apply to people, apply to the state. I appreciate that. <br /> I think the only way we differed on definition was in what can be applied to "morality" and coercion.. Nature vs human action.<br /> Other than that, I think you were very fair. <br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />JimJim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57460175486820014002012-08-01T15:04:01.584-04:002012-08-01T15:04:01.584-04:00Yes I think we're back where we started, which...Yes I think we're back where we started, which is that there's a fundamental difference in language. We've failed to agree upon the meaning of certain words (coercion, aggression, morality, definition) and as a result we're each making claims that are obviously true to ourselves and look truly silly to each other.<br /><br />I appreciate your taking the time to articulate your views. Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31963216050239027272012-08-01T14:08:14.495-04:002012-08-01T14:08:14.495-04:00Contrar,
I am not saying nature-caused bad is l...Contrar,<br /> I am not saying nature-caused bad is less problematic than human-caused bad. Sure, they can be equally bad and problematic. But only one is immoral. And this has nothing to do with how I define agression or coercion. Nature caused coercion by definition can not be immoral.<br /><br /> BTW, I looked up coercion on Wiki:<br /><br /> is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.<br /><br />So I think I am being pretty consistant with the actual definition. <br /><br />I am not defining a difference between case 1 and case 1 as you say. By definition, there is a difference! One has force caused by nature, one has force caused by man. This is not me playing arbirary definitions! they have two very distinct qualit<br /><br />Do you not see the immorality of saying man must be held responsible for nature caused coercion?<br /><br />By this very definition all exchange should be outlawed. As anyone selling food for money is technically the same as the trolly # 1. <br /> Man will die if he does not eat food. Man with food demands money to prevent man from dying.<br /> Its an absurd concept to say other men should be responsible for a man with nature caused coercion being applied (and not just responsible, but we need to create a man made gun coercion to enforce it). <br /> I think we have gotten to the circle point here Contrar.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60847760110577727602012-08-01T12:19:23.665-04:002012-08-01T12:19:23.665-04:00M,
Wiki's definition of coercion (not mine)
...M,<br /> Wiki's definition of coercion (not mine)<br /><br /> is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.<br /><br /> Regardless how you define coercion, the logical flaw you make with saying employers coerce their employees is that the coercion (or the actual force applied to people) does not actually come from the employer. A person needs to work because of scarcity (or nature itself). So the source of your so called "coercion" comes from nature, not the emplyer. Regardless of how one defines coercion, you still havent made a just case for bringing in the real coercion of the state to alter a mutally agreed on contract between an emplyee and employer. <br /> Now coercion from the state on the other hand is completly different. Unlike the employer/employee relationship, The force is actually supplied by the state not nature. This is what makes the latter completely immoral. And I dont care what your definition of coercion is, you still must deal with this issue, to make your case!Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52514071819846989972012-08-01T11:31:13.155-04:002012-08-01T11:31:13.155-04:00Jim,
I don't think there's any logical mi...Jim,<br /><br />I don't think there's any logical mistake being made, so much as a difference of starting assumptions.<br /><br />You're free to define aggression and coercion however you want; I just don't see any reason to define them in the way that you do. I don't understand why you find a naturally-caused bad to be less problematic than a human-cased bad. To me, death is death, whether by human-fired bullet or naturally-occurring trolley. Choosing between death and surrender of property is a terrible decision, whether death is naturally or human-caused. <br /><br />It seems like the only reason you see a difference between case 1 and case 2 is because you're defining there to be one. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do, just not very compelling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11025053955593207652012-07-31T21:32:13.823-04:002012-07-31T21:32:13.823-04:00Safe travels.Safe travels.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33290721513750293742012-07-31T16:43:50.802-04:002012-07-31T16:43:50.802-04:00Jim,
you have a peculiarly restrictive definition...Jim,<br /><br />you have a peculiarly restrictive definition of coercion, which of course suits your pre-defined purposes very nicely.<br /><br />btw, I can't believe you guys are still at this one! It confirms the intuition that whenever I want to boost traffic on this site all I need to do is write something about libertarianism (or misogyny).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82339219897116296212012-07-31T16:34:27.821-04:002012-07-31T16:34:27.821-04:00You make the same logical mistake that Massimo mak...You make the same logical mistake that Massimo makes in this post. You confuse the so called "coercion" of nature and assign it to man.<br /> The stranger in case 1 (or Massimo's evil employers) is not coercing anyone. The coercion comes from nature and therefore by definition is not coercion. I haven't looked up websters definition but coercion usually implies one man forcing another against into involuntary action.<br /> The stranger did not force the trolly situation, nature did. The stranger only looks for compensation for action.<br /> Had the stranger set the whole situation and placed the other in harms way then demanded the money for rescue, this would by definition be coercion (by the stranger) but because he did not, by definition, he is not coercing anyone. <br /> Even if I'm wrong on the definition of coercion, it is still not the stranger coercing, it is nature.<br /> But if you say the man must help at gunpoint, then you have real coercion, from one man to another.<br /><br /> Think of the implications of saying we are all responsible for natures coercion to other men and should be by force. It is an immoral concept in itself. (let alone an impossible quest) . <br /><br /> There is a major difference between privately bought protection and that provided by the state. In principle, the state must first steal to provide it, which renders it no different than a mafia. So the vary action one hopes to prevent must be accepted. Then there is the practical end of performance of the protection agency. Where one must directly serve the customer, corruption and tyranny at its hands will all but disappear. The other being a self serving monopoly and need not worry about its customers satisfaction.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90537868938849699042012-07-31T16:32:15.410-04:002012-07-31T16:32:15.410-04:00Sorry, this is getting tiresome. Just reread what ...Sorry, this is getting tiresome. Just reread what I have written and maybe you will get my point. Will be travelling from tomorrow anyway. <br />Cheers<br />C.chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57870049624685275372012-07-31T16:26:40.994-04:002012-07-31T16:26:40.994-04:00Seeing this part of the comments somewhat late. Ju...Seeing this part of the comments somewhat late. Just as an aside, around here both 1 and 2 would be charged with extortion - if the trolley guy dies, 1 would also be charged with failure to render assistance and I am pretty sure he would get the maximum sentence of 1 year in prison.<br /><br />I am also pretty sure that 90% of the population in every civilized country would agree with both the extortion and the assist-failure sentencing... ;-)chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33536092161889198652012-07-31T15:53:29.443-04:002012-07-31T15:53:29.443-04:00Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. You...Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. You originally argued that there isn't much point in Lockean system because we can't rightfully move to such a system due to the theft that has occurred in the past. Or if we do want to move to a Lockean system we must start with equal property to resolve the theft that has occurred in the past.<br /> I said that if we know that theft occurred then by definition we must agree in Lockean system and also, to know that it existed, then by definition, we know what it was (and therefore can attempt to resolve it)<br /> You say there are other systems of property that involve theft so your point still stands.<br /><br /><br />Ok? Please define the alternative system and define theft.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3815049576325587892012-07-31T13:54:05.243-04:002012-07-31T13:54:05.243-04:00Just to be clear - your statement was "by def...Just to be clear - your statement was "by definition you must agree that the libertarian or Lockean system for assignment of property title is correct and moral. Otherwise there could be no "theft"."<br />My point is that these are not the only property rights systems, and other systems have theft, too. The existence or even definition of theft in no way makes your system correct and/or moral.chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6419779544642392022012-07-31T13:10:04.401-04:002012-07-31T13:10:04.401-04:00Did you even continue reading? Theft is not integr...Did you even continue reading? Theft is not integral to my argument that Lockean property rights are by no means a just system.chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72606452487211003702012-07-31T12:34:41.456-04:002012-07-31T12:34:41.456-04:00Chris,
"Actually I dont have to agree at ...Chris,<br /> <br />"Actually I dont have to agree at all. Starting at the end"<br /><br />No, you do not have to agree, but you can not start at the end. Think this out Chris. You are using theft as a principle in your argument, but insist theft needs to have no actual meaning.<br /><br />In order to have anything in your argument have meaning. You must define theft. To define theft, you must define property rights. I think you were using the Lockean means to define theft through this debate, but now you say that is not true.<br /><br />Until you define theft. the thought experiments and the rest is meaningless. Not only can there be no such thing as "unambiguous theft", but your not even giving the word "theft" any meaning. Theft is not just contingent on property, it is contingent in assigning title to that property.<br /> In your example of Tribe Y taking tribe X's communal cattle, this can still easily fit within Lockean property rights system. So long as Tribe X has agreed with each other that the cattle is communal and theirs together. What actually makes the cattle belong to tribe X?<br /> This is no different than our families (which is a tiny example of effective communism) but we still say property is owned by our family, such as a home, land etc..., and we say this because it is self evident under natural law (Lockean system). Our family worked together to pay for and thus our combined labor bought it, etc..<br /><br />There is nothing in this system that says people cannot agree to own something togther, which is what a family is, or a tribe owning communal property.<br /><br />Im sorry, but you cannot make an argument against property rights using theft, and have no assigned meaning to theft. You cannot, so to speak 'start at the end"Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69195747326375326392012-07-31T12:28:33.958-04:002012-07-31T12:28:33.958-04:00Jim,
The question of whether courts/police are pu...Jim,<br /><br />The question of whether courts/police are publicly or privately provided, while interesting, seems entirely tangential to the point I'm trying to make.<br /><br />Place my trolley scenarios in a future anarchist society where states do not exist and law and courts are private. In this society, there exists some mechanism, involving force, that prevents the stranger in case 2 from committing robbery. The stranger is coerced into not robbing the man. Maybe a private police officer defends the man, maybe a private court jails the stranger for his crime, or maybe some other mechanism is used, but it definitely involves force. <br /><br />The justification for allowing coercion of the stranger (forcing him to not rob/kill) is that since robbery is itself an act of aggression, the coercion of the stranger is less bad than the coercion of the man tied to the trolley (forcing him to surrender his property or be killed), which is what the stranger is trying to do.<br /><br />My argument is the threat made by the stranger in case 1 is comparable to the threat made by the stranger in case 2. As a result, the same legal mechanism that applies in case 2 is justified in acting identically in case 1. The act of not saving someone who is about to die when it is very easy to do so, I say, is an act of aggression, and coercing the stranger (forcing him to save the man free of charge) is therefore justified / less bad than the coercion being applied by the stranger to the man on the tracks (forcing him to surrender his property or be killed).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92145330593825583592012-07-31T11:02:51.179-04:002012-07-31T11:02:51.179-04:00Jim,
>>Also, by even your own conclusions, ...Jim,<br /><br />>>Also, by even your own conclusions, by definition you must agree that the libertarian or Lockean system for assignment of property title is correct and moral. Otherwise there could be no "theft". There could not have been any B thru K participants that owned $100,000 each.<<<br /><br />Actually, I don't have to agree at all. Starting at the end:<br /><br />- Theft is contingent on property, but not on Lockean property. You don't even need individual private property. If tribe X raids tribe Y and takes their communal cattle, that is already theft. Sorry, no redefining the word. <br /><br />- There is no inherent justice in the Lockean principle of first ownership, "first come, first serve". Even as a theoretical principle it is a matter of luck, not justice - and this all on top of the point that the victor is the one writing history (i.e. you don't know who owns it.) In Locke's England, it is highly unlikely that there was a single piece of property that was owned by the rightful "first principle" owner - after all, the Angles and the Saxons did a lot of invading, then the Roman invaded the Celts, later came the Vikings, the Normans etc etc. (Might have got my order wrong here.) <br /><br />- Is the principle of self-ownership just? It sounds reasonable, and as a justification why slavery is immoral it is great, but beyond that it is quite useless as a practical justification of ownership. Here is where the example is illuminating.<br /><br />Independent of how you define theft, it seems we are agreed that A had no just claim to the original 1m. 1D is reasonable, but why 2F and not 2C? Without the "machinations" at the beginning (btw, I didn't say that A was the actual thief, just that he came into possession of the money, i.e. was the beneficiary of the injustice), after the 20 years A would own nothing and the others 200k each. 2F is still the logical answer for you because of the principle of self-ownership - A labored for 20 years, and that is worth something. How much, you don't know (1D), but you seem to think it is independent of his actual right to property (which he doesn't have in the example).<br /><br />Fine and logical, only that has nothing to do with justice. We agree that labor has value, but how much value is not objective but arbitrary. Why is A's labor worth more than without his "stroke of luck"? Why is B's labor worth less? Or, to go to the real world and disregard whether anybody justly owns what he has - why should the labor of somebody who had the luck to stumble on fertile land be worth more than the guy who got the rocky patch? Etc etc.<br /><br />No, I don't agree with you that yours is a just system. Still, you gave the answer 2F, so there is still hope that you actually take your own logic to its conclusion... ;-)<br /><br />Cheers<br />Chrischbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9725808389500641202012-07-30T19:49:56.459-04:002012-07-30T19:49:56.459-04:00There are really good papers on the subject of pri...There are really good papers on the subject of private law, courts and police that answer the typical fallacies on the market better than I can. mises.org has a wealth of these on the subject. I can summarize any of the points off hand, but likely not as logical and methodical.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76088663236982089732012-07-30T19:41:29.512-04:002012-07-30T19:41:29.512-04:00Then of course the argument that a protection serv...Then of course the argument that a protection service will have guns and can force people to do business with it and beat out its competition by force and not service to society. Yes this is technically possible. Then we would call it "the state"Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44018451178135381352012-07-30T19:36:41.770-04:002012-07-30T19:36:41.770-04:00Contrar,
What you are really asking (what case 2...Contrar,<br /> What you are really asking (what case 2 actually is) is how do we have protection service absent the state. <br /> Case 2 is not really a trolly experiment, but just someone being robbed at gunpoint. (to my previous point, for a state to exist, it must rob at gun point).<br /><br /> There is no reason that protection service cannot be a function of the market (and it often is). But there is no reason the towns, states and federal government must each have their own monopoly on a section of protection service. This is difficult to imagine until one actually does the homework and sees the differences between state monopoly protection service and free market protection service. <br /> I can't tell you exactly how a 100% free market protection service would look like anymore than I could predict what the shoe, computer, auto or any other industry would look like in 10 years. That depends on market forces (technology, preferences of society, etc...).<br /> But what I can say, is that with any industry where the market has taken over from the state (mail, telecom, Internet etc...,) or competes with the state (retirement funds, services etc...) the market does an infinitely better job innovating, making cheaper, providing better product. The empirical evidence of market vs state as providing for society is a case closed.<br /> Of course there are the usual agruements one must get past that have logical fallacies.<br /><br />Such as : if the market handles protection, the poor will have no protection service, only the rich will afford the best service and own the poor. There will be no service for the poor. Truth: had the state owned a monopoly on making shoes, and I suggested that shoes should be made by the market, people would say the same thing. "how will the poor buy shoes!" <br /> The fact is that protection will improve drastically as all market services and products do over time. State protection technically improves, but It doesn't improve service to the customer as a monopoly need not concern itself with such things, a market service company must or another will.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73487658399447979282012-07-30T18:15:59.277-04:002012-07-30T18:15:59.277-04:00Paul,
I am not a pacifist. The non-aggression ax...Paul, <br /> I am not a pacifist. The non-aggression axiom does not mean pacifism. Most Libertarians believe (including myself) that once the non-aggression axiom is violated, then force may be used, but only to repel or make whole property loss.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60807026306662911922012-07-30T17:19:43.326-04:002012-07-30T17:19:43.326-04:00This is why I say my method is better than a new &...This is why I say my method is better than a new "equal for all" starting point. The fact that we can agree theft has occurred means.<br />1. We agree in the Lockean system as the only moral one.<br />2. We know where the theft occurred ( otherwise there is no theft)Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.com