I don’t see what you’re trying to prove, since I didn’t claim that those statements contradict. What I’m challenging is the absolute truth of statement 1 and I’m raising a related question about what constitutes something being voluntary. Statement 1 could be said to be absolutely true in a purely psychological context (I.E. in terms of what people like or think benefits them) but this is a far cry from “benefit” in a more serious sense (I.E. in terms of what is necessary for survival and flourishing as a human being in a society). In the 2nd sense, the premise is obviously not true (I can make tons of voluntary exchanges for tickle-me-elmos until I am dirt poor and can’t afford food, ending in a net loss, not a benefit), and it even ceases to be true in the 1st sense as soon as someone’s value scale shifts or if their satisfication ends.
As for what voluntary-ness is, I’m saying that “agreement” to do something can become superficial when one has no other practical choice or when it is done in the context of a threat of explusion. This means that either we must create the ambiguous category of “voluntary duress” or place such situations outside of the scope of what we consider to be voluntary. If we maintain that they are indeed voluntary, then I’d argue it follows that not everything that is voluntary is good or compatible with personal autonomy. If we maintain that they are not voluntary, then we have a more restricted standard of what counts as voluntary. My contention would therefore be that at least some people either have too broad of a conception of what is voluntary or they do not take into account the insufficiency of voluntary-ness.
The crucial point you’re leaving out or missing is that the kind of person who would take advantage of the dehydrated person’s position in such a way to make a million dollars or gain lifetime servitude is, by most ethical standards, unvirtuous (or, more bluntly, an asshole). Yes, the dehydrated party benefits by not dying of thirst, but not in a way that demonstrates any kind of empathy or respect. And in the case of lifetime servitude, the dehydrated party has lost their freedom, and to call this a “mutual benefit” at such a point seems ridiculous. The point is that the “mutual benefit” is ethically trivial because someone is using their position of power to gain as much as they can from someone else in a dire situation.
By most ethical standards, the virtuous thing to do is simply to give the guy a bottle of water out of baseline empathy. Unfortunately, this kind of consideration does not fit into ideological presuppositions of the exchange-based economic analysis some people insist on limiting everything to. Such an analysis can only think in terms of gaining something tangible from someone else, no matter how exhorbitant such a demand may be. Any question about norms (other than the implicit and unquestioned one of contractualism/voluntaryism) can be disregarded. In this way, it’s an excellent rationalization for avoiding thinking ethically. I consider this an economics fetish taken to extremes.
No, A did not kill B. However, if A shouts down “give me your life savings and a blowjob and I’ll save you from drowning”, I’d consider them an asshole and at such a point they have willingly abstained from helping someone in a dire situation for bad reasons (I.E. simply because they couldn’t make an exhorbitant gain from it).
Esuric and Brainpolice, thank you both for answering my question.
I’m glad to see that you both agree that failing or refusing to help someone is not the same as hurting him. Whether the person does so for “bad reasons” is technically irrelevant here.
My point is that the Non-Aggression Principle does not address people acting like assholes. That’s why I make a distinction between morality (which I take to address harms) and ethics (which I take to address things other than harms).
Of course, I do agree that someone offering a drowning man help only in exchange for his life savings and a blowjob is being a huge asshole, to say the least.
Yes. But technically speaking, any individual that possesses something of value (subjectively valued by someone else), either a good or a service, is in a “position of power” by some degree. But, as Hayek stated, “If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” There’s a lot packed into this very short quote.
I think that this entire line of thinking misses the forest from the trees.
Sure, the person drowning values rescue and thus the person capable of rescue has something of value to trade, but he is only going to trade that for something he values in return.
BP’s issues with trade, are the same as many other LLs. They only approve of voluntarism which also conforms to their aesthetic, the aesthetic of the trade partners is irrelevant. It’s trade by sanction from 3rd parties. It’s intolerance and a denial of the balance struck by two parties at the time of exchange.
Hey, maybe there is someone out there who prefers to pay in oral sex. Maybe they enjoy it, maybe they are great at it (making it their more marketable skill), maybe they just don’t have anything else to barter with at that moment. Taking the LL/BP position forward, they should either (1) refuse to trade oral sex for rescue, or (2) the rescuer should be asked to perform a service without adequate payment.
It’s not a big leap to take this position even further, and see it is another justification for statism. A has rights which imposes positive obligations on B.
This sort of thinking is nothing new. It’s the same old brother’s keeper mantra.
You’re being generous. I think a more accurate description would use the word force.
Which brings up an interesting irony, the arguement goes that person A is obligated to assist person B because person A is a position of power over person B. But if person B is able to force person A to do his will, that reverses the position of power and thus the obligation.
So I agree with Brainpolice, the drowning person has an obligation to (not coerce) person A.
Interesting. While I agree that freedom means having the right to be a dick, I don’t consider A to be in “a position of power” over B in the example that I gave. Maybe we define the phrase “position of power” differently. I typically equate “power” with “ability to coerce”. How does A requesting certain things from B in exchange for rescuing B, and B subsequently accepting the offer, equate to coercion? I don’t see how it does. B is not prima facie entitled to being rescued (assuming he started drowning on his own). Therefore, not rescuing B, or charging an exorbitant price for rescuing him, does not take anything away from him.
Good point. One must be careful to define “trade” such that it implies voluntarism/voluntariness. Otherwise, opponents could claim that all libertarians only approve of trades (here defined merely as “transactions”) which also conform to their aesthetic.
I think you mean B has rights which impose positive obligations on A.
It depends how one describes “position of power”. I would agree, that A is in a position of power towards B who is drowning (assuming there is no one around). So A has a service (he can help B), but he decides to exploit it and deman oral sex, or something more vulgar or sick, just to illustrate my point. Then B has no other choice but to submit.
So yeah, I think I’d consider it “position of power” too. And it is very important criticism to all voluntaryists/propertarians out there. To answer the topic, not all voluntary (voluntary?) transactions are mutual. Not all voluntary transactions are just or ethical.
How does B have no other choice but to submit? B could choose to reject A’s offer and drown.
I’m not sure how you’re defining “position of power”. Can you please explain?
While I agree that I would not find all voluntary transactions to be ethical, “ethics” to me does not cover harm/aggression. “Morality” does. So, for example, I would consider A to be within his moral rights to not rescue B, who is drowning, but I’d consider A to be extremely unethical in that decision.
How does B have no other choice but to submit? B could choose to reject A’s offer and drown.
That’s what I am talking about. Death is not an option. it is not a choice, unless it is voluntary suicide. In this case only lunatic would say that drowning person commited suicide because he didn’t want to suck A’s dick.
Being forced to choose between two extremes is never a mutual choice. It can be “voluntary” and even moral according to NAP, but not mutual or ethical. Do you think a woman has a “choice” when rapist asks her “you want oral or anal sex”? No.
While I agree that I would not find all voluntary transactions to be ethical, “ethics” to me does not cover harm/aggression. “Morality” does. So, for example, I would consider A to be within his moral rights to not rescue B, who is drowning, but I’d consider A to be extremely unethical in that decision.
Thanks for the clarification. In your post to which I replied, your argument seemed to me to be essentially, because many transactions are not completely voluntary, all voluntary transactions are not mutually beneficial. I guess I got that from, “The issue at play is that there is vagueness surrounding the concept of ‘voluntary-ness’ or that the systematic context in which these activities take place makes such '‘voluntary-ness’ impossible.” When trying to refute Statement 1, this arument is meaningless. I’m glad I misunderstood you.
So we have a billionaire in the in the dessert, accompanied by a poor local lad making a few extra bucks as a tour guide. The billionaire is careless with water he’s brought along, washing his sore feet, pouring it over his head, spilling as he drinks, etc. The local lad, on the other hand, is more conservative with the water he’s brought along. After a day of being utterly lost (I gues the lad is not much of a tour guide), they determine that they are a several hours away from their water-plentiful destination. The billionaire is weak and severely dehydrated, and most likely will not make the journey without more water. The lad is well hydrated and even has a full bottle left. The billionaire makes the offer: A million dollars for the bottle of water. For the lad, this is a life-changing amount of money, for him and his family. For the billionaire, it is a trifle sum. On the other hand, the lad knows how difficult it would be to make the rest of the journey without drinking any more water. There’s a good chance he won’t make it. He also knows that the billionaire will barely make it with all of the water that’s left.
The lad has a very dificult choice: Risk the very real possibility of death from dehydration in order to gain undreampt wealth and also to save this man’s life, or leave him to die and make it home safely to a life of poverty.
For the billionaire, this is a no-brainer - a small portion of his wealth to keep on living.
If lady required all his money, then that would be “taking advantage”. In this case, the pure human compassion should be enough to help the dying billionaire. Any requirement of money is unethical. Unless billionaire himself offers her a million.
That wasn’t my point. Take for example a rapist and a victim. Rapist demands “either you submit or I will kill you”. Can this “voluntary exchange” be called mutually beneficial?
Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn’t use coercion.
That’s the reason I don’t believe in democracy even though, statist can say, that if I vote for this guy I can mutually benefit or that it is somehow voluntary decision that people make. It’s not. Sure, you can sit at home and do not vote, but that won’t stop politicians from making laws that you do not agree with.
it is not a choice, unless it is voluntary suicide. In this case only lunatic would say that drowning person commited suicide because he didn’t want to suck A’s dick.