Are All Transactions Mutual?

[JackCuyler]

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 mutual beneficial?

Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn’t use coercion.

The bolding is mine.

That bolded text makes VERY big difference. On one hand, one person is going to make another’s situation worse regardless of what is chosen. On the other hand, a person will help another person, or leave that other person exactly as he was found, neither better nor worse.

I can hurt you or hurt you.

I can help you or leave you alone.

[JackCuyler]

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.

Even though the lad is risking his life?

[MaikU]

@JackCuyler

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 mutual beneficial?

Similary with drowning man, even though, A didn’t use coercion.

The bolding is mine.

That bolded text makes VERY big difference. On one hand, one person is going to make another’s situation worse regardless of what is chosen. On the other hand, a person will help another person, or leave that other person exactly as he was found, neither better nor worse.

I can hurt you or hurt you.

I can help you or leave you alone.

and that’s why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist. Just because A doesn’t use coercion doesn’t mean he isn’t exploiting B. A knows very well, that B won’t refuse to his offer, because he can die if he refuses to suck his dick.

Just fyi, I don’t believe there is some moral obligation, but there is an ethical one.

[MaikU]

@JackCuyler

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.

Even though the lad is risking his life?

if he really thinks he is risking HIS life, then nope (his or her? Lad = lady?). But I see what you are trying to do. One has to evaluate “risk factor” before taking some extreme action. (sorry my english here). If there is a real risk that A can drown himself, then yes, refusing to help B wouldn’t be unethical or immoral. But if he demands “oral sex” or any other extreme service, then it is clear enough that he is just playing with a victim.

Same would be if lad asked to suck her ass for a bottle of water. It’s exploitation.

[liberty_student]

@MaikU

and that’s why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist.

So then what do you base your anarcho-capitalism on?

[JackCuyler]

MaikU,

Sorry for the gender confusion. Lad is a slang term for boy or young man, The female equivelent would be “lass”. Also laddie and lassie. Anyhow…

In my desert story, I thought I was clear that the young man was risking his life by giving up the water. That was my point: The billionaire obviously benefitted from the exchange, but there was a very real risk to the young man. A million dollars for a bottle of water is not always a simple example of pure greed.

[JackCuyler]

But if he demands “oral sex” or any other extreme service, then it is clear enough that he is just playing with a victim.

So you, a third party, gets to determine this?

Can you not see the difference between being a person causing someone harm, and nature causing someone harm?

Rape is one person harming another. The rapist offers a choice, sure, but it is a choice of the rapist hurting the victim in one manner, or the rapist hurting the victim in another manner.

Our drowning person, in this example, at least, is a victim of nature. The horny guy walking by also offers a choice: I will do something nice for you if you do somethig nice for me, or I can just leave you alone.

[Autolykos]

@MaikU

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.

Technically, B is not choosing death. He’s choosing to refuse A’s help. How is he obligated to accept it?

@MaikU

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.

A didn’t cause B to start drowning, so A didn’t force B to choose between two extremes. If A had pushed B into the lake when he knew that B couldn’t swim, and then offered to rescue B in exchange for all of B’s life savings, then A would clearly be coercing B.

Esuric, Liberty Student, JonBostwick, JackCuyler, and myself are all defining “voluntary” such that anything voluntary is necessarily mutual as well. Furthermore, B being rescued by A in exchange for all of B’s life savings is mutual for B – otherwise, B would have preferred to go without A’s help!

[Autolykos]

@MaikU

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?

How is it a voluntary exchange? I certainly wouldn’t consider it such. Nor do I think would Esuric, Liberty Student, JonBostwick, or JackCuyler. If you’re consider a rape to be a voluntary exchange, then what isn’t a voluntary exchange to you?

[Autolykos]

@JackCuyler

In my desert story, I thought I was clear that the young man was risking his life by giving up the water. That was my point: The billionaire obviously benefitted from the exchange, but there was a very real risk to the young man. A million dollars for a bottle of water is not always a simple example of pure greed.

Technically, the young man doesn’t face a dilemma. For example, he could make a counter-offer of half the bottle of water for a million dollars.

[Esuric]

and that’s why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist. Just because A doesn’t use coercion doesn’t mean he isn’t exploiting B. A knows very well, that B won’t refuse to his offer, because he can die if he refuses to suck his dick.

Listen, I could improve your life greatly by selling off all of my assets and giving you my entire life savings. The fact that I choose to hold onto my assets and entire life savings does not mean that I am exploiting you. The man who owns the bottle of water (person A), in BP’s example, can choose to either give the bottle of water to the man dying of dehydration (person B), or he cannot. But the fact remains, person A is not dying because of person B, and person A has no right to the property of person B. There is a very clear and concrete definition of exploitation and a very clear and concrete distinction between persuasion and coercion. Society cannot function if it does not understand this. LLB’s create ambiguity where there is none and override the subjective valuations of individuals with their own arbitrary value judgements (what is “right” and what is “wrong”).

[Autolykos]

@Esuric

But the fact remains, person B is not dying because of person A, and person B has no right to the property of person A.

FTFY

[JackCuyler]

Technically, the young man doesn’t face a dilemma. For example, he could make a counter-offer of half the bottle of water for a million dollars.

I guess I’m not a very good story teller. Ahh well. I thried to make the situation as follows:

• Boy keeps water, boy lives, man dies, boy is poor
• Boy trades water, boy might die, man lives, boy is rich (if he lives)
• They share water, boy lives, man dies, boy cannot claim the money

[Bostwick]

Technically, the young man doesn’t face a dilemma. For example, he could make a counter-offer of half the bottle of water for a million dollars.

Yes he does. Any amount of water sold is water that he can not drink himself.

[Autolykos]

@JonBostwick

Yes he does. Any amount of water sold is water that he can not drink himself.

The dilemma I was referring to is giving the billionaire the entire bottle vs. keeping the entire bottle for himself.

[Brainpolice]

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.

My perspective is that it is kind of absurd to try to think of situations like this strictly in terms of economic exchange. I don’t think it makes sense to reduce all human relations to “trade”. Quite simply, I don’t think these economic categories are universalizable to describe human relations. We’re not economic calculation machines who act solely on the basis of exchange-utility.

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.

This is a tiring canard. As I explained earlier in the thread, I actually take the values of the party B for granted to make my argument, since it is party B’s capacity for autonomy and ability to realize their values that is in question. No 3rd party imposition is necessary, and furthermore I’m not even talking at the level of legality.

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.

I have explained to you and others why this is a non-sequitor and strawman, ad nauseum. You’re mixing up the legal and non-legal portions of ethics to make such an accusation, a distinction which has been clarified over and over again.

[liberty_student]

I never said a word about legality. I am stricly talking about ethics and morality. Try again BP.

[Brainpolice]

I never said a word about legality. I am stricly talking about ethics and morality. Try again BP.

You implicitly make it about legality the moment you cry “statism” as a non-sequitor in reaction to people talking about non-legal ethics. It’s a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization because noone has stated that anyone has legal obligations in these scenarios, making cries of “statism” nonsensical. At best, your statements imply that you think a non-legal normative position that one ought not to do what I’ve been describing leads to statism, which I think is highly debatable to say the least.

[MaikU]

@Esuric

and that’s why I am not propertarian anarcho-capitalist. Just because A doesn’t use coercion doesn’t mean he isn’t exploiting B. A knows very well, that B won’t refuse to his offer, because he can die if he refuses to suck his dick.

Listen, I could improve your life greatly by selling off all of my assets and giving you my entire life savings. The fact that I choose to hold onto my assets and entire life savings does not mean that I am exploiting you. The man who owns the bottle of water (person A), in BP’s example, can choose to either give the bottle of water to the man dying of dehydration (person B), or he cannot. But the fact remains, person A is not dying because of person B, and person A has no right to the property of person B. There is a very clear and concrete definition of exploitation and a very clear and concrete distinction between persuasion and coercion. Society cannot function if it does not understand this. LLB’s create ambiguity where there is none and override the subjective valuations of individuals with their own arbitrary value judgements (what is “right” and what is “wrong”).

I am not talking about “legal exploitation”, but the ethical one, or just in general sense, being in a position of power and KNOWING it very good and then using it to justify one’s moral failings so to speak.

[Autolykos]

@Brainpolice

You implicitly make it about legality the moment you cry “statism” as a non-sequitor in reaction to people talking about non-legal ethics. It’s a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization because noone has stated that anyone has legal obligations in these scenarios, making cries of “statism” nonsensical. At best, your statements imply that you think a non-legal normative position that one ought not to do what I’ve been describing leads to statism, which I think is highly debatable to say the least.

By “non-legal ethics”, do you mean a presumed part of ethics where violations thereof do not justify coercion or punishment of the violators?

@MaikU

I am not talking about “legal exploitation”, but the ethical one, or just in general sense, being in a position of power and KNOWING it very good and then using it to justify one’s moral failings so to speak.

Again, how do you define “position of power”? Do you define “power” like I do – “ability to coerce”? Or what?