Are All Transactions Mutual?

[Brainpolice]

Maybe she likes being mistreated. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the BD/SM scene. Would you argue that alternative sexual lifestyles and relationships are not mutual? How would you determine what is and is not?

Once again, you’re dropping the context and bringing up a special case as a red herring. Clearly, the context of what he was talking about was not BD/SM. Plenty of people are in perpetually abusive relationships without really enjoying the treatment they get, often because they are scared or dependent on some way. It doesn’t mean it’s a mutually beneficial relationship.

You’re stuck with BP and others with this argument, because you’re saying that YOU the 3rd party can void any exchange or interaction.

This strawman of “you’re advocating forcing people to act in certain ways” is old, and it always is an evasion of what people are actually argueing.

Or you’re saying, that one party can always void a transaction by claiming exploitation. Which almost works, except which party gets to claim this? What if they both do?

This too is a false framing of what is being said. What makes it exploitation is not that a party in any exchange, for whatever arbitrary reason, says it is or suddenly doesn’t like something. What makes it exploitation is that the systematic context in which they live or the particular situation creates power dynamics that give them little choice but to submit to control by others, that people’s unfortunate circumstances are used as an oppurtunity to get the most out of them while still leaving them in the same basic situation. If that context is established, then they can meaningfully claim exploitation.

[Brainpolice]

Where I get stuck here is the “lack of options” and “unfortunate circumstances” part. Don’t those things necessarily imply subjective value judgements to begin with? My problem is that judgement has already been made out of the circumstances, and that the circumstances are “bad”. This would imply that wether something is exploitation or not is subjective.

The kind of things being refered to are such that literally whoever was the party in them, it would be “bad” or an “unfortunate circumstance” for them, not only from their perspective, but objectively in terms of survival and flourishing. If your requirement is that it has to be “bad” from their perspective, you’ll be hard pressed to find any functional human being who would not find it to be “bad” or “unfortunate” when they themselves were in the situation. Thus, no “3rd party imposition” necessary.

So I think that bringing “subjective value judgements” into this is irrelevant, and furthermore, as I implied in my earlier posts in this thread, subjective value theory in economics is not the same thing as ethical subjectivism. Some “Austrians” conflate the two, which is a categorical error. But even within an ethical subjectivist framework, my arguments can work.

[Autolykos]

@Brainpolice

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

Yes, and/or that portion of ethics that doesn’t have to do with physical aggression.

Okay, fair enough. I myself make the same kind of distinction, although I use different terms. Here’s what I see as the mapping between our different semantics:

• My “morality” equals your “legal ethics”.
• My “ethics” equals your “non-legal ethics”.

Does that make sense?

@Brainpolice

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

See above.

Gotcha. I’ll address your definition below.

@Brainpolice

About the “position of power thing”, I definitely think that in the drowning scenario, the non-drowning person is situationally in a position of power. It’s not political power, but it is a position of power relationally, in the sense that their decision can significantly effect the life of someone else - and in this case, their decision equates to life or death for someone else. The fact that it’s a position of power becomes even more clear when we add that they are making demands of servitude from someone else based on the fact that the other person is in a vulnerable position. I don’t see how we can look at such a scenario and not see that there is an obvious power dynamic that can be taken advantage of.

With all due respect, this suggests to me that you do think that A would be killing B by refusing to help him.

Furthermore, I can only infer from this that you’re defining “position of power” as simply “inequality of circumstance(s)”. If I’m wrong here, please help me understand better.

@Brainpolice

Likewise, in my original bottle-of-water scenario, the non-dehydrating person is in a position of power in that they possess something that is instrumental towards saving the other person’s life; the power to withhold that, their decision to share it or not, determines someone else’s fate. Are they Hitler? No. But there obviously is a power dynamic that they can use to gain as much as they can from someone else, while that someone else is essentially helpless. I would say that someone who knowingly, willing tries to gain something in such a way from someone in a vulnerable position, to make a power play, is basically engaged in exploitation.

Here it sounds like you’re using “exploitation” and “make a power play” to mean “enhance an inequality relationship (particularly an economic inequality relationship”. This seems to be consistent with your previous paragraph. Essentially you’re saying that you find it unethical (in terms of your non-legal ethics) for one to use another’s disadvantage as a means to gain an advantage for himself.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that can keep you (or anyone else) from considering coercion to be justified in such situations is if you see such coercion as being aggressive. And the only thing that can let you see such coercion as being aggressive is if you distinguish refusing to help from causing harm. However, it doesn’t seem to me like you constistently distinguish between the two. Does this make sense?

@Brainpolice

This is essentially what I understand “exploitation” to mean, no LTV necessary. It has to do with the power dynamics of particular situations, basically taking advantage of other people’s lack of options and unfortunate circumstances to either control them are gain as much as one can from them. And absolute land property rights (potentially) justifies exploitation because a chunk of land functions as an unlimited sphere of power in which one can control others (do whatever I tell you to do within these lines, or be forced outside of these lines).

How do you define “control” there?

I think the issue with land ownership is more complex and nuanced than “do whatever I tell you to do within these lines, or be forced outside of these lines”. To put it that way seems like an oversimplification and hence a strawman, IMO. Or is that the point you’re making?

[Brainpolice]

Okay, fair enough. I myself make the same kind of distinction, although I use different terms. Here’s what I see as the mapping between our different semantics:

• My “morality” equals your “legal ethics”.
• My “ethics” equals your “non-legal ethics”.

Does that make sense?

That seems about right. I just call it “ethics” and split it into a legal and non-legal domain, although I think the two can relate to each other in certain ways (I.E. I don’t think that libertarianism as a political doctrine can actually be applicable in the real world without a certain level of ethics within the culture, and in this sense I think non-legal ethics is a prerequisite for the legal portion of ethics to work). I generally avoid the word “morality”, partly because it tends to have more religious connotations and skeptic/nihilist types are more likely to get oppositional by the use of the word.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

Maybe she likes being mistreated. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the BD/SM scene. Would you argue that alternative sexual lifestyles and relationships are not mutual? How would you determine what is and is not?

Once again, you’re dropping the context and bringing up a special case as a red herring.

I wrote, “maybe she likes being mistreated”. How does Scott know she does or does not? There are many people engaged in BD/SM that interact in what I consider to be abusive manners, but I certainly don’t claim that the exchange isn’t mutual.

Calling it a red herring is in itself a red herring. My point is clear and substantive. How does Scott know what is voluntary sado-masochism and what is not?

@Brainpolice

Clearly, the context of what he was talking about was not BD/SM.

Now you’re special pleading.

@Brainpolice

Plenty of people are in perpetually abusive relationships without really enjoying the treatment they get, often because they are scared or dependent on some way. It doesn’t mean it’s a mutually beneficial relationship.

Who is responsible for your or my feelings of fear and dependence?

@Brainpolice

You’re stuck with BP and others with this argument, because you’re saying that YOU the 3rd party can void any exchange or interaction.

This strawman of “you’re advocating forcing people to act in certain ways” is old, and it always is an evasion of what people are actually argueing.

What are you advocating then? Can you or can you not pass judgment on whether Scott and my relationship is exploitative, regardless of how we feel about it?

@Brainpolice

Or you’re saying, that one party can always void a transaction by claiming exploitation. Which almost works, except which party gets to claim this? What if they both do?

This too is a false framing of what is being said. What makes it exploitation is not that a party in any exchange, for whatever arbitrary reason, says it is or suddenly doesn’t like something. What makes it exploitation is that the systematic context in which they live or the particular situation creates power dynamics that give them little choice but to submit to control by others, that people’s unfortunate circumstances are used as an oppurtunity to get the most out of them while still leaving them in the same basic situation. If that context is established, then they can meaningfully claim exploitation.

Who establishes this context? Party A, B or 3rd party C?

[Autolykos]

@Brainpolice

Okay, fair enough. I myself make the same kind of distinction, although I use different terms. Here’s what I see as the mapping between our different semantics:

• My “morality” equals your “legal ethics”.
• My “ethics” equals your “non-legal ethics”.

Does that make sense?

That seems about right. I just call it “ethics” and split it into a legal and non-legal domain, although I think the two can relate to each other in certain ways (I.E. I don’t think that libertarianism as a political doctrine can actually be applicable in the real world without a certain level of ethics within the culture, and in this sense I think non-legal ethics is a prerequisite for the legal portion of ethics to work). I generally avoid the word “morality”, partly because it tends to have more religious connotations and skeptic/nihilist types are more likely to get oppositional by the use of the word.

Yeah, I can understand the hang-up about the term “morality”. I’m confused about your statement that “non-legal ethics is a prerequisite for the legal portion of ethics to work” – can you explain what you mean there?

FYI, I edited my last post to address your definition of “position of power”.

[Autolykos]

@MaikU

And I am not saying you would or anyone in his right mind would do that. At least on this forum. What I am saying is that it is quite arbitrary. Especially it is noticeable in the drowning man example, that’s why I am trying to defend B’s position. One doesn’t have to use force to be ethicaly wrong. I think I am the only one in this thread who believes in objective morality so I now understand why it’s hard for you to walk in my shoes. I am not propagating using violence against A if he doesn’t help B, I am merely observing people’s actions and try to understand intentions. Why human act the way it acts?

You’re saying that the definition of “voluntary exchange” is quite arbitrary? Well, of course it is. All definitions are quite arbitrary, and inherently at that.

To me, it’s not a question of whether one has to use force (better: commit aggression) to be ethically wrong. Rather, it’s a question of whether force/coercion is justified against someone when that someone hasn’t initiated it already. It can also be a question of what constitutes force/coercion to begin with. For example, in my example, one could say that A is coercing B because B is drowning. Of course, that would imply a different definition of “coerce” from “using or threatening physical force/violence”.

I’m not sure how you can believe in objective morality. Maybe I’m not sure about your sense of “objective”?

[AnonLLF]

@liberty student

@Scott F

A psychologically mistreats his girlfriend B but never beats her or threatens it.I’d hardly say that’s mutual.You don’t need to be an LL to see that.I’ve always though this way.By saying it’s mutual your essentially saying it’s moral which doesn’t make much sense.

“Maybe she likes being mistreated.”

Possibly.However if you look at examples of BD/SM and actual abusive relationships of any kind the differences are in the majority of cases clear.In any case I have shown that not all voluntary relationships(which involve a trade in the sense of values and non material things) are mutual.Maybe you wish to change your claim to all voluntary trade in economic terms is mutually beneficial? then I might reconsider.Though I can see the issue of context there too at least under statism.

" Perhaps you’re not familiar with the BD/SM scene."

Not personally but I know of it.

" Would you argue that alternative sexual lifestyles and relationships are not mutual?"

Sometimes.I tend to think polygamy cannot work.

" How would you determine what is and is not?"

whether it’s a relationship in which just behaviour prevails i.e. the person is not expected to blindly obey,adherence to NAP, kindness etc not all of it is required to be a mutual relationship but some things are.

“You’re stuck with BP and others with this argument, because you’re saying that YOU the 3rd party can void any exchange or interaction.”

Well my argument differs in some respect to him.I don’t think an immoral relation is any less voluntary but if it’s abusive/ immoral then that’s irrelevant.

And what do you mean by “void”? void suggests cancel,invalidate or null.None of which I am suggesting.

" Or you’re saying, that one party can always void a transaction by claiming exploitation."

I’ve never argued that.I haven’t seen BP argue that either though he may hold that position.I do not.

[JackCuyler]

@**Brainpolice

**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.

All human action, regardless of how seemingly insignificant, is subject to calculation. That is, to perform one action is to postpone or refrain from all other possible actions. The action performed at any given moment is the action the actor belives at that moment will provide the most increase in utility.

That is praxeology, not economics. It looks like you are confusing praxeology with economics. It’s easy to do, as economics is a branch of praxeology, and many of the same terms are used.

[liberty_student]

@Scott F

However if you look at examples of BD/SM and actual abusive relationships of any kind the differences are in the majority of cases clear.

Right, consent. Which you guys say is not enough.

@Scott F

In any case I have shown that not all voluntary relationships(which involve a trade in the sense of values and non material things) are mutual.

You haven’t demonstrated that. It’s still just an assertion.

@Scott F

Maybe you wish to change your claim to all voluntary trade in economic terms is mutually beneficial? then I might reconsider.

I don’t know what you mean by that sentence. Are you sure you are accurately representing my claim? Care to source it?

@Scott F

Sometimes.I tend to think polygamy cannot work.

Work for who? If the people in the relationship feel it is working, then who could argue otherwise? Do people need to check with Scott before doing things in their own life?

@Scott F

" How would you determine what is and is not?"

whether it’s a relationship in which just behaviour prevails i.e. the person is not expected to blindly obey,adherence to NAP, kindness etc not all of it is required to be a mutual relationship but some things are.

You haven’t answered the question. What are the “some things”?

See, this is the bizzare part of your position. You are staking out a moral claim, and yet you can’t clearly define what is and is not moral behavior. How can you seriously use words like “just” when you can’t define what just is, and how you arrive at that conclusion?

@Scott F

Well my argument differs in some respect to him.I don’t think an immoral relation is any less voluntary but if it’s abusive/ immoral then that’s irrelevant.

See above. You don’t even have a definition for morality, but you use the word immoral. What is immoral? What is moral? How can I know what is right and wrong in Scott’s world?

[Bostwick]

What you seem to be missing is that, yes, while “nature” may be the cause of the person’s unfortunate circumstances, one is taking advantage of someone else’s unfortunate circumstances to control them and get them to do something they obviously do not want to do.

Sloppy language reveals sloppy thinking.

The person is not doing “something they obviously do not want to do”. They do want to do it more than they want to do the alternative(dying), or else they wouldn’t do it.

What you should have said is “one is taking advantage of someone else’s unfortunate circumstances to control them and get them to do something they obviously would not otherwise do”

But whats so special about that? All mutual exchange works that way; someone doing something they would not otherwise do, like fix my car. Normally if I simply asked a person to fix my car they would refuse, but after I offered them $100 in exchange for fixing my car they would likely gladly do it.

The two situations are perfectly analogous. In both situations one person releaves the other from an undesireable situation in exchange for compensation.

What you are are suggesting amounts to putting a price ceiling on rescues, which as everyone else on this forum knows, will reduce the amount of rescues provided. You can hardly claim to be acting in the interests of the drowning person. Like all real social planners, you’re placing your aesthetic preferences above the welfare of the people you claim to be looking out for.

[Giant_Joe]

LS, I’ll cut the nonsense and give you the line that you should be expecting from those who wish to impose their sense of morality on everyone else:

You’re missing the context.

That’s the line people tend to fall back on when they can’t clearly explain their position on such matters, but insist that they have figured out what is right and what is wrong.

[liberty_student]

I’ve heard all sorts of excuses and justifications. These debates have been going on here for nearly 2 years.

No one from the thick side of the argument finishes a debate. Usually it devolves to name calling, bogus accusations, blatant trolling or as we see here, abandonment.

[MaikU]

@Autolykos

@MaikU

And I am not saying you would or anyone in his right mind would do that. At least on this forum. What I am saying is that it is quite arbitrary. Especially it is noticeable in the drowning man example, that’s why I am trying to defend B’s position. One doesn’t have to use force to be ethicaly wrong. I think I am the only one in this thread who believes in objective morality so I now understand why it’s hard for you to walk in my shoes. I am not propagating using violence against A if he doesn’t help B, I am merely observing people’s actions and try to understand intentions. Why human act the way it acts?

You’re saying that the definition of “voluntary exchange” is quite arbitrary? Well, of course it is. All definitions are quite arbitrary, and inherently at that.

To me, it’s not a question of whether one has to use force (better: commit aggression) to be ethically wrong. Rather, it’s a question of whether force/coercion is justified against someone when that someone hasn’t initiated it already. It can also be a question of what constitutes force/coercion to begin with. For example, in my example, one could say that A is coercing B because B is drowning. Of course, that would imply a different definition of “coerce” from “using or threatening physical force/violence”.

I’m not sure how you can believe in objective morality. Maybe I’m not sure about your sense of “objective”?

By arbitrary I mean that just because something is done on a voluntary basis doesn’t mean it is right and many ancaps tend to forget it. So that’s my issue with voluntaryism (which is a part of ancapism as far as I know), even though I do not reject it. I like to improve things.

I wouldn’t call A’s actions towards B “coercion”, we have other word - exploitation. Even though radical leftists (I mean here marxists) abused it too, haha. I’d like to use coercion only talking in legal context.

Talking about objective morality, I mean that it is possible to find consistent moral norms that could be applied to all humans universally. To most ancaps it is just NAP, to me, objective morality. After all, NAP is a consistent principle and it was known for thousands of years in different names. But to know a principle doesn’t mean to use.. and that’s the sad part of human history. I am rambling, sorry.

[Angurse]

All voluntary transactions are inherently mutual, but in a sense that may end up being superficial in some contexts. If the systematic context in which it takes places greatly limits people’s options or if disparities of power are used as leverage to milk people, a voluntary transaction can manifest as simple submission. In this way I think that the concept of “voluntary-ness” can be ambiguous.

The concepts of “greatly limited options” and “disparities of power” are themselves ambiguous.

I can “voluntarily” submit to power because I have no other choice besides death or extreme misery, not necessarily because my values are being genuinely represented.

Obviously you genuinely value life. So theres one.

The power dynamics of the particular situation is what determines whether the “mutual benefit” is meaningful.

And “meaningful” is determined how?

[MaikU]

@Giant_Joe

LS, I’ll cut the nonsense and give you the line that you should be expecting from those who wish to impose their sense of morality on everyone else:

You’re missing the context.

That’s the line people tend to fall back on when they can’t clearly explain their position on such matters, but insist that they have figured out what is right and what is wrong.

And I don’t disagree. It may be the language issue. If one’s mind was able to be put into other person’s mind and to see through his eyes, maybe THEN he could understand his opponent Until then, keep talking and trying to understand the other side. It’s the best we can do now.

[Angurse]

And I don’t disagree. It may be the language issue. If one’s mind was able to be put into other person’s mind and to see through his eyes, maybe THEN he could understand his opponent Until then, keep talking and trying to understand the other side. It’s the best we can do now.

This entire debate can be summed up quite succinctly actually.

Side A: Its wrong.

Side B: No, it isn’t.

(There may be some fringe commentators I’ve overlooked but thats the basics). It would seem that the side crying foul would have to prove it, but (as we all should know) morality isn’t provable.

[Brainpolice]

With all due respect, this suggests to me that you do think that A would be killing B by refusing to help him.

Not exactly. It’s that one uses the scenario as an excuse to make extreme demands that I’m objecting to. Whether or not the agent is considered liable in killing them is a separate issue from what I’m focusing on.

Furthermore, I can only infer from this that you’re defining “position of power” as simply “inequality of circumstance(s)”. If I’m wrong here, please help me understand better.

Well that’s certainly part of it, but the focus is on how people use those inequalities as leverage to control others or get things from them. The circumstances themselves aren’t what the ethical question revolves around.

Here it sounds like you’re using “exploitation” and “make a power play” to mean “enhance an inequality relationship (particularly an economic inequality relationship”. This seems to be consistent with your previous paragraph. Essentially you’re saying that you find it unethical (in terms of your non-legal ethics) for one to use another’s disadvantage as a means to gain an advantage for himself.

Yes, although the kind of “advantage” need not be explicitly economic or in terms of tangible goods.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that can keep you (or anyone else) from considering coercion to be justified in such situations is if you see such coercion as being aggressive. And the only thing that can let you see such coercion as being aggressive is if you distinguish refusing to help from causing harm. However, it doesn’t seem to me like you constistently distinguish between the two. Does this make sense?

I really don’t think the refusing to help vs. causing harm distinction is particular relevant to what I’m taking issue with. My distinction is between willingly taking advantage of and helping.

I think the issue with land ownership is more complex and nuanced than “do whatever I tell you to do within these lines, or be forced outside of these lines”. To put it that way seems like an oversimplification and hence a strawman, IMO. Or is that the point you’re making?

There is more to it than that, but I’m quite series that this is what absolute land property rights amounts to.

Yeah, I can understand the hang-up about the term “morality”. I’m confused about your statement that “non-legal ethics is a prerequisite for the legal portion of ethics to work” – can you explain what you mean there?

Basically, it’s the thick libertarianism thing. To be more specific, I don’t think that you can have a functional free society without at least a base-line egalitarian ethos being dominant and that ethos manifesting itself in a lack of extreme heirarchies.

[Brainpolice]

All human action, regardless of how seemingly insignificant, is subject to calculation. That is, to perform one action is to postpone or refrain from all other possible actions. The action performed at any given moment is the action the actor belives at that moment will provide the most increase in utility.

Except this line only works in conditions in which no party is under duress and they have the ability to actualize their values in an autonamous manner. The whole problem is that in some contexts this is clearly not the case. In some cases, people clearly are not engaging in the action that represents their values or actually increases their well-being in any meaningful way. That’s the whole “context” thing that apparently can just be ignored.

Not only is someone capable of being wrong in what they believe will provide the most utility, not only can they conclude that it did not provide the most utility for them, but the conditions in which they live or the circimstances of a particular situation can limit their capacity to achieve the most utility. The only way to ignore this is by basically defining “utility” in such a way that it is impossible for any action to not increase utility, which seems absurd.

But this line is also dubious in the sense that it doesn’t work as a totalistic description of how humans actually behave. Humans don’t strictly act on the basis of calculations of utility. They can act on whim and be influenced by a whole slew of emotions that have nothing to do with any thought process on their part weighing costs and benefits. The homo-economicus doesn’t exist. If one wishes to basically assert praxeology as a universal psychological model, you’re going to run into loads of problems.

[Brainpolice]

LS, I’ll cut the nonsense and give you the line that you should be expecting from those who wish to impose their sense of morality on everyone else:

You’re missing the context.

That’s the line people tend to fall back on when they can’t clearly explain their position on such matters, but insist that they have figured out what is right and what is wrong.

With all due respect, this post is ridiculous. Firstly, the “imposing your morality on everyone else” canard has been addressed ad nauseum. Since I’m not talking at the level of legal enforcement, any claim of “statism” rings hollow. If you object to the application of norms to others in general, well, then libertarianism in general (far from a “value-free” doctrine) has to be ruled out along with everything else, and you’ve implicitly embraced a very absurd form of moral nihilism which is impossible for anyone to follow. Applying interpersonal standards to others is what we do as humans.

As for the talk of “context”, that certainly isn’t a simple cop-out, it’s a response to arguments that seem to be stuck thinking in general terms without consideration for factors which may constitute exceptions to the rule that one has adopted a priori. The “context” is precisely what determines whether or not your principles apply to something particular.