I think he means that you are morally free to attack me and I am morally free to defend against you. I don’t agree with this position because it has nothing to do with morality. It doesn’t really describe morality so much as it describes capabilities of people.
I also agree that it is not human nature. Obviously, there are people who aggress against others when they can get away with it, as well as even when they cannot. But there are far more people who prefer to get along than criminals.
On second thought, I think you’re right. After all, aggression and defense are both forms of coercion (at least how I define it). So I stand corrected.
I agree with the rest of your post.
I do not pretend to know what human nature actually is. I know what I perceive it to be.
I did not intend to derail this thread.
I don’t perceive human nature as Hobbesian. And I have no idea why you apparently do.
I’m not sure that I perceive it as Hobbesian.
And I believe in a version of might makes right.
Everybody does. Mises, Lachmann, Hayek or whomever you want to pick knows this. This is no reason not to consider the proposition of anarchy if all we are looking at is the nature of grammer, the imperative to act, utility functions, and what the nature of subsidy is.
We could say in a certain sense we are always in a state of “anarchy”, and all we are doing is looking for grammer errors along the way.
This is kind of the reason why I think there are 2 main reasons “right liberterians anarchists” will never be reconcilled with “left libertarian anarchists”.
We (right libs) adopt the language of “left libs” as it is more mainstream (rights, anarchy, etc) and hence more intuitive to grasp on to at first - which causes all types of confusion with people and within ourselves.
What we (right libs) really are talking about is probably something closer to Egoism/ subjectivism as it manifests in obvious reality when we say “anarchism”; a leftist is actually talking about some abstract form of government and aesthetics that don’t make sense as a “thing in itself” (hence a left wingers obsession with justice, a certain kind of utilitarianism, rights, maybe even “science”, etc in the abstract) - rather than actual factual affirmation of human action and it’s consequences (the market process - not the market as a thing).
So when you say “might makes relevant” we could just say it is a tautological fact in the social sciences,that asocial behavior is irrelevant / weak behavior - no matter what - “social behavior” must be relevant / correct.
The problem with theft, at least in my opinion, is not that it is immoral but rather that is extremely inefficient (some would claim that it is immoral precisely because it is so inefficient). The two social welfare programs you cite, namely medicare and medicaid, perfectly highlight this fact.
Neither medicare nor medicaid have made healthcare more affordable, nor have they made the goods and services produced by this industry any better. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Both have directly contributed to the rapid acceleration of healthcare prices over the last 6-7 decades. Additionally, both programs literally have t__rillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and will inevitably cause some sort of fiscal catastrophe in the (near) future. The fact that individuals have become dependent on such inefficient programs is not sufficient justification for the continuation of their existence.
These sort of programs are entirely redistributive as opposed to productive, and because they are coercive, they yield negative externalities/create an incentive structure which actually limits productive activity rather than promote it. The government simply lacks the mechanisms required for efficient economic calculation and coordination. So again, most individuals oppose this sort of social engineering on both moral and scientific grounds.
That is why theft is wrong. Consider a rephrasing: Many people cannot support themselves because a system based on theft is currently destroying LIVES.
Are you sure whether you perceive it as anything? If so, what exactly do you perceive it as?
This is most certainly a subject best left for another thread.
I’d be happy to start a new thread, but I’d call it “BloomJ31’s Perception of Human Nature” or something similar. Are you okay with that?
I think most libertarians would maintain that by entering a store, you agree to pay for any items you take from the shelves. What would you all say to someone who says that, similarly, by living within the territory of the state, you consent to paying for the services which the state renders unto you? As long as the state makes it clear that you must pay up or else be sent to jail, what makes it different from any other voluntary association - a country club, insurance company, etc. - that demands service fees?
I’d say that means the state owns my land and I don’t. But the state says I own my land, so…
But notice how this completely changes the argument. From “welfare creates a free lunch out of thin air” to “socialism gears production to better accommodate the needs of the poor”. The latter argument is much weaker and can easily be refuted by looking at history or the world. It’s just not the case that free market economies allocate huge chunks of their GDP to producing luxuries for the rich. Actually the opposite is the case; capitalist production is geared towards mass-producing cheap goods for the masses first.