Bryan Caplan v. Roderick Long

[liberty_student]

@JamesB

I’ve never argued that imbalances in purchasing power are unjust. Most of us argue that even though voluntary trade is always mutually beneficial (or at least believed to be ex ante) when it takes place within the context of one party having very few choices or opportunities available it can still be morally problematic.

Utopians will always struggle with the fact that nature is not kind or fair. That has been the root of soft-hearted statism which becomes a justification for the police state. “For the children”, “For the women”, “For the minorities”, “For the disabled”.

@JamesB

Say someone rescues you from drowning on the condition you give them all your life savings. It’s un-coerced and mutually beneficial but it still leaves questions open.

Not at all. If you value your life more than your savings, it’s a great trade.

@JamesB

The solution isn’t to prevent the trade but to improve the context.

What does this mean?

@JamesB

To move from “being voluntary is necessary but insufficient” to “this ideology isn’t comfortable with voluntary relations” is simply a non-sequitur.

How can voluntarism be insufficient? That’s the whole point. Voluntarism IS sufficient. As soon as you add conditions, it is no longer voluntary.

[liberty_student]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

That can only happen when there is a monopoly law provider. Where there is competition, the guys with the most money don’t have the advantage of buying the system

Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

Yes. And it matters how?

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I wasn’t making a comment about rightism. But yes, it becomes authoritarian, which is why Ancap is superior. It is neither right nor left

I’m not sure anybody but other an-caps would agree with you there.

I’m not looking for a consensus, but if that is true, then I am pleased with it. If you feel ancap is a right wing doctrine, then you really haven’t learned much about it in your time here.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Any legal system is “managing social relations” so I’m not sure that’s really that big of an issue anyway.

In a polycentric, panarchic, ancap order, people manage their own relations. You’re talking about managing what other people choose to do. That’s authoritarianism.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

If a/all judge/s do not accept said contract, are you going to force them too?

Who will pay for, or listen to a judge who rules against their voluntary wishes? That’s the entire point of anarchism. People get to define their own rules, and for ancaps, the only limitation is that no one interferes with anyone else’s liberty as this is a moral double standard.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I am pretty sure most of the world would agree with me that it is not valid to sell one’s self into slavery.

But again, this is majoritarianism, or democracy. It is not anarchic. You’re actually arguing for mob rule instead of arguing for individual liberty,

This ^^^ is what I mean by leftism being a parody of itself. It isn’t about freedom, it is about mass movements and majority consent. It is about telling people what they can and cannot do with their own lives and property. That is authoritarianism.

[JamesB]

Utopians will always struggle with the fact that nature is not kind or fair. That has been the root of soft-hearted statism which becomes a justification for the police state. “For the children”, “For the women”, “For the minorities”, “For the disabled”.

Right, but I never said nature was kind or fair. This is barely an argument. Nature isn’t really non-aggressive either, that doesn’t mean its not an ethical ideal we can work towards. Same with helping vulnerable people, it’s a matter of finding the most incentive compatible system. Also preventing murder is often a justification for the state, do we anti-statists then reject this crazy “anti-murder” concept?

Not at all. If you value your life more than your savings, it’s a great trade.

Yeah, so like I said it’s mutually beneficial. Yet the context does make it seem like one party has taken advantage of the other’s vulnarablity.

What does this mean?

It means I don’t want to prevent trades. Instead I want to be part of a system that creates more options for people. You know, one that allows capital accumulation and entrepeneurship take place. Things like that.

How can voluntarism be insufficient? That’s the whole point. Voluntarism IS sufficient. As soon as you add conditions, it is no longer voluntary.

Nonsense. I can disapprove of something without wanting to ban it. Voluntarism is sufficient for issues of rights but the subject of ethics covers more than just the proper use of force.

[liberty_student]

@JamesB

Right, but I never said nature was kind or fair. This is barely an argument. Nature isn’t really non-aggressive either, that doesn’t mean its not an ethical ideal we can work towards.

What is the ethical idea?

@JamesB

Same with helping vulnerable people, it’s a matter of finding the most incentive compatible system.

Sounds like planning, does it not?

@JamesB

Also preventing murder is often a justification for the state, do we anti-statists then reject this crazy “anti-murder” concept?

Libertarians reject murder because it is involuntary. If what you’re proposing undermines voluntarism, than libertarians should reject it.

@JamesB

Yeah, so like I said it’s mutually beneficial. Yet the context does make it seem like one party has taken advantage of the other’s vulnarablity.

The context only seems that way to you, and other people who see a victim narrative in voluntary exchange. It is a deficiency in the understanding of leftists, not a deficiency in exchange itself.

@JamesB

It means I don’t want to prevent trades. Instead I want to be part of a system that creates more options for people. You know, one that allows capital accumulation and entrepeneurship take place. Things like that.

That’s called the market. It requires voluntary trades. Including people charging starving people 1000s of dollars for a Big Mac. If you feel someone is taking advantage of someone else, your response in the market would be to compete and offer a better deal. Most leftists don’t compete though. They blog and write articles about market arbitrage opportunities, instead of participating.

The noble man is the entrepreneur who makes it cheaper to save someone’s life, not the social justice activist who talks about how unfair it is that the market doesn’t provide what he feels it should.

@JamesB

How can voluntarism be insufficient? That’s the whole point. Voluntarism IS sufficient. As soon as you add conditions, it is no longer voluntary.

Nonsense. I can disapprove of something without wanting to ban it.

You can disapprove of anything, but that doesn’t mean diddly-squat wrt ethics. Don’t confuse your preferences with ethical truths.

@JamesB

Voluntarism is sufficient for issues of rights but the subject of ethics covers more than just the proper use of force.

This statement has been offered here many times, and it has never made any sense whatsoever. Voluntarism is an ethical position. Your judging voluntary relations as unjust isn’t compatible with voluntarism.

[JamesB]

What is the ethical idea?

Opposition to aggression, I said that in the same sentance.

Sounds like planning, does it not?

It does not. No more than finding the most incentive compatible system for wealth creation and rights protections.

Libertarians reject murder because it is involuntary. If what you’re proposing undermines voluntarism, than libertarians should reject it.

That’s not what I meant to imply. I’m pointing out that just because statists have used a concept in their arguments doesn’t mean we can’t in ours. They want a state to stop people murdering, we want to abolish the state to stop people murdering. Same with other issues.

The context only seems that way to you, and other people who see a victim narrative in voluntary exchange. It is a deficiency in the understanding of leftists, not a deficiency in exchange itself.

Yeah but my point isn’t that their is a deficiency in the exchange itself but in the context. Actually most people are with me on this point, you will struggle to find many people who don’t think it’s wrong to take advantage of someone in that situation.

That’s called the market. It requires voluntary trades. Including people charging starving people 1000s of dollars for a Big Mac. If you feel someone is taking advantage of someone else, your response in the market would be to compete and offer a better deal. Most leftists don’t compete though. They blog and write articles about market arbitrage opportunities, instead of participating.

The noble man is the entrepreneur who makes it cheaper to save someone’s life, not the social justice activist who talks about how unfair it is that the market doesn’t provide what he feels it should.

Of course, my point isn’t that the free market/voluntary exchange is bad. My point is a) we should promote systems that reduce things like starving people paying 1000s of dollars for big macs over ones that don’t and b) part of this system will always consist of certain cultural or ethical values people hold, we are the market, so in order for the market to do anything about these problems we also need to promote the right values too.

You can disapprove of anything, but that doesn’t mean diddly-squat wrt ethics. Don’t confuse your preferences with ethical truths.

I’m not, why assume that instead of assuming i’ve based this preference on what I believe to be ethical? There’s no reason to believe ethics and values/preferences are mutually exclusive.

This statement has been offered here many times, and it has never made any sense whatsoever. Voluntarism is an ethical position. Your judging voluntary relations as unjust isn’t compatible with voluntarism.

Not unless I also advocate using force as a remedy. If I think people shouldn’t trade with racists, but wont force them to go along with my boycott where is the aggression?

[Esuric]

Yeah but my point isn’t that their is a deficiency in the exchange itself but in the context. Actually most people are with me on this point, you will struggle to find many people who don’t think it’s wrong to take advantage of someone in that situation.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense and I completely disagree with you.

My point is a) we should promote systems that reduce things like starving people paying 1000s of dollars for big macs over ones that don’t

Please elaborate with specifics. How would you “promote” such systems?

[liberty_student]

@JamesB

Sounds like planning, does it not?

It does not. No more than finding the most incentive compatible system for wealth creation and rights protections.

If that is not planning, what does it mean?

@JamesB

Yeah but my point isn’t that their is a deficiency in the exchange itself but in the context.

You haven’t demonstrated what that deficiency is.

@JamesB

Actually most people are with me on this point, you will struggle to find many people who don’t think it’s wrong to take advantage of someone in that situation.

Actually, most people think war, taxes and government are good ideas. Do you really want to continue with the line of reasoning that popularity is validity?

@JamesB

Of course, my point isn’t that the free market/voluntary exchange is bad.

Just some exchanges are bad…

@JamesB

My point is a) we should promote systems that reduce things like starving people paying 1000s of dollars for big macs over ones that don’t

Why? And isn’t the solution the free market, which requires voluntarism to function?

@JamesB

b) part of this system will always consist of certain cultural or ethical values people hold, we are the market, so in order for the market to do anything about these problems we also need to promote the right values too.

This is the problem. What are the right values? If the market is free, aren’t the values reflected in it the “right” ones? Back again to where leftists lose the plot. They will not accept that some people will make choices they do not think are right when given the freedom to do so. So it’s a lot of “we” and “should” and “system” which is just planning. It’s the statist mentality.

@JamesB

There’s no reason to believe ethics and values/preferences are mutually exclusive.

I never claimed there is. You are claiming they cannot be.

@JamesB

Not unless I also advocate using force as a remedy. If I think people shouldn’t trade with racists, but wont force them to go along with my boycott where is the aggression?

And the old escape, “but I won’t use violence to bring this about.”

The issue isn’t whether or not you would use violence. The question is, if you oppose outcomes arrived at voluntarily by others, how can you claim with a straight face that you are for voluntarism?

The leftist answer for everything is mass action like boycotts and sitins. Heaven forbid they use the market to solve what are perceived to be shortcomings in society. You say it is unfair to for someone to demand all of someone’s savings to save their life, and yet you’re more than happy to get together and boycott that individual to starve them out to force them to do things the way you want them done.

A parody of liberty. And not a particularly funny one.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

That can only happen when there is a monopoly law provider. Where there is competition, the guys with the most money don’t have the advantage of buying the system

Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

Yes. And it matters how?

Because the rich lunch with the rich, and the judge is likely to be rich. My lawyer purposefully dinners and lunches with all the judges in this area specifically to have them lean in his favor. ILoO is a theory of conflict of interest.

I’m not looking for a consensus, but if that is true, then I am pleased with it. If you feel ancap is a right wing doctrine, then you really haven’t learned much about it in your time here

Are there a lot of leftist an-caps out there? I didn’t say anarchy was right wing, but an-cap most certainly is (as far as a voluntary society can have a right/left dichotomy). Social anarchists are pro-gun (most anyway), would you say theyre not left wing? And the rightist-ness comes more from the rhetoric of its supporters, rather than the thoery itself. Like I said, it’s kind of hard to say a voluntary society has a left/right distinction.

In a polycentric, panarchic, ancap order, people manage their own relations. You’re talking about managing what other people choose to do. That’s authoritarianism

Spare me. No offense, but this is quack argument, the likes of Glenn Beck’s style, or Move-on.org. You can’t just call everyone you disagree with a NAZI (or statist, or authoritarian). Are you saying there will be no judges in an-cap, and all laws will be layed out beforehand in perfect order, never to be changed?

Any legal system is the way a society shapes and molds itself. As long as there are discrepancies in the law, and there always will be, we will be molding society.

Who will pay for, or listen to a judge who rules against their voluntary wishes? That’s the entire point of anarchism. People get to define their own rules, and for ancaps, the only limitation is that no one interferes with anyone else’s liberty as this is a moral double standard.

Ya, and there still has to be a legal system to sort out discrepancies. If someone enters a contract selling themselves into slavery, and the contractor cannot find a judge that agrees with one being able to sell one’s self into slavery, will you force them? I ask this because most people are going to agree with me on this issue, whether or not you think that’s “democratic authoritarianism.” If no judges follow you, and you force them to, it is not us that are being authoritarian.

But again, this is majoritarianism, or democracy. It is not anarchic. You’re actually arguing for mob rule instead of arguing for individual liberty,

No, the point is that most would agree with me, including the judges who decide the validity of contracts. It is not that we are politically forcing anything on you. It is that you will be hard-pressed to find a court that agrees with you, ergo, you would be the one forcing your view on the rest of the world.

Not as an appeal to authority, but I must ask, do you disagree with Rothbard that you cannot “sell the capitalized future value of your service?”

Also, you smiled when I said an-cap sounds like capital-feudalism. Care to elaborate?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

If that is not planning, what does it mean?

Research and debate? The same thing Rothbard et. al. did when they created their ethics.

Actually, most people think war, taxes and government are good ideas.

I think you’re going to be hard pressed to find many people who think those are good ideas, as opposed to neccessary evils; especially ones who believe all three.

If the market is free, aren’t the values reflected in it the “right” ones?

The market promotes the most efficient values, not neccessarily the “right” ones; but, as you said, “right” is subjective.

So it’s a lot of “we” and “should” and “system” which is just planning. It’s the statist mentality

Explain to me your logic that “we should fix the system” is equivalent to “do what I say or I will shoot you” please.

The issue isn’t whether or not you would use violence. The question is, if you oppose outcomes arrived at voluntarily by others, how can you claim with a straight face that you are for voluntarism?

Because people will subject themselves to all kinds of things under durress. THings they absolutely would not subject themselves to under normal circumstances. Voluntary is somewhat subjective under the right circumstances; is someone who supports everything taxes pay for, and the tax rates, being coerced?

The leftist answer for everything is mass action like boycotts and sitins. Heaven forbid they use the market to solve what are perceived to be shortcomings in society. You say it is unfair to for someone to demand all of someone’s savings to save their life, and yet you’re more than happy to get together and boycott that individual to starve them out to force them to do things the way you want them done

What’s wrong with boycotts and sitins?

How are those not market solutions if they don’t violently force you to do anything?
Boycotting someone’s business does not “sell the capitalized future value of their service.” They are perfectly free to start another business, or get another job. Nobody shut their business down but themselves for not meeting consumer demands.

Did I just catch you in a rare moment of inconsistency?

[Esuric]

Spare me. No offense, but this is quack argument, the likes of Glenn Beck’s style, or Move-on.org.

No it’s not; it’s undeniable logic.

You can’t just call everyone you disagree with a NAZI (or statist, or authoritarian).

He’s showing you why you’re wrong, and you’re getting emotional.

The market promotes the most efficient values, not neccessarily the “right” ones; but, as you said, “right” is subjective.p

Which makes this statement absolutely meaningless. The fact that you chose to correct yourself at the end implies that LS’s arguments are beginning to stick.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Which makes this statement absolutely meaningless. The fact that you chose to correct yourself at the end implies that LS’s arguments are beginning to stick

How can I correct myself if I’ve known “right” is subjective for years now?

Haha, I do agree that the statement is meaningless tho. Just pointing out the market cares about efficient means, not necessarily the right ones.

[Esuric]

How can I correct myself if I’ve known “right” is subjective for years now?

Don’t ask me. You’re the one (repeatedly) making the mistake.

Just pointing out the

cares about efficient means, not necessarily the right ones.

begs the question once again…

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Don’t ask me. You’re the one (repeatedly) making the mistake

Citations plz, that I repeatedly assume right is objective

begs the question once again

How am I assuming my answer implicitly/explicitly in the premise?

If I didn’t know better Eusuric, I’d say you were trollin.

[liberty_student]

Epicurus, I appreciate your wanting to defend leftism, but unfortunately, you still don’t understand what ancap is and is not. You also don’t seem to have much if any familiarity with polycentric legal orders, or the development of law (common, commercial, maritime) in the market.

You say you are an anarchist, but you argue at times as a democrat populist. For someone who is anti-state, you don’t seem to have a vision of what a stateless society might look like or how it could function, persevere and thrive.

These are things you should investigate. Worthy topics. There is a lifetime of knowledge on this website in the media section which can guide you to a lot of genuine scholarship, instead of the emotionalism and sloganeering found on blogs and various anarchist hangouts online.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Poisoning the well:? Argument from fallacy:?

You say you are an anarchist, but you argue at times as a democrat populist.

I am, and I do. I’m really into people’s movements. When individuals come together stand up for themselves against oppression, I get chills. In a world where money is king, populism is the most effecient way to “fight the power.”

For someone who is anti-state, you don’t seem to have a vision of what a stateless society might look like or how it could function, persevere and thrive.

Syndacalism, market economics, democratic management, competing courts (no supreme court, per se), voluntary constitutions/city charters, unions (not just labor), universal education, healthcare (and possibly subsistence), those are just my ideas tho. I have many more. But I am no tyrant, I wouldn’t force my views on the world.

These are things you should investigate. Worthy topics

In due time. Do you assume I don’t accept your view striclty out of ignorance?

[Giant_Joe]

You say you are an anarchist, but you argue at times as a democrat populist.

I am, and I do. I’m really into people’s movements. When individuals come together stand up for themselves against oppression, I get chills. In a world where money is king, populism is the most effecient way to “fight the power.”

Those movements are transitional. They stop once a new order is in place. Anarchy isn’t about overthrowing government as much as it is about preventing government, or having a sustainable society without government.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Those movements are transitional. They stop once a new order is in place

That’s the beauty

Anarchy isn’t about overthrowing government as much as it is about preventing government, or having a sustainable society without government

Can’t it be about both?

Ever read “The Giver?” That book ingrained the lesson in me that, even in a seeming utopia, we still have to question/fight the system.

[liberty_student]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I am, and I do. I’m really into people’s movements. When individuals come together stand up for themselves against oppression, I get chills. In a world where money is king, populism is the most effecient way to “fight the power.”

Please learn what money is because you don’t understand it right now, and it is very hard to discuss with you under that circumstance.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Syndacalism, market economics, democratic management, competing courts (no supreme court, per se), voluntary constitutions/city charters, unions (not just labor), universal education, healthcare (and possibly subsistence), those are just my ideas tho. I have many more. But I am no tyrant, I wouldn’t force my views on the world.

If you’re an anarchist, at least half of that is not consistent with anarchy.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Do you assume I don’t accept your view striclty out of ignorance?

It’s not that you don’t accept my view. It’s that you can’t mount a solid criticism of it because you don’t understand it.

[Esuric]

If I didn’t know better Eusuric, I’d say you were trollin.

Here’s the problem: You (a) understand that value is entirely subjective/exists solely at the individual level (right and wrong, insofar as they refer to value, are individualistic notions/calculations) and (b) that voluntary exchange, i.e., the market mechanism, best facilitates the processes by which individuals satiate their subjective desires (most efficient). So far so good. But then you claim that the market does not promote the “right” or correct values, but this only makes sense if you believe that value is categorical or objectively determined (which you correctly reject). You cannot hold both positions at the same time and remain internally consistent. In other words, you’re not making much sense.

Some examples:

Voluntary is somewhat subjective under the right circumstances

The market promotes the most efficient values, not neccessarily the “right” ones

Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying?

[JamesB]

Your argument doesn’t make any sense and I completely disagree with you.

Ok, any reason why?

Please elaborate with specifics. How would you “promote” such systems?

Well, anyway that doesn’t involve aggression. I see two basic problems to be overcome. The first is the right legal/economic system, I imagine we are mostly in agreement on what this would be, the second is the right sort of cultural values that would prevent anyone loosing their choices/opportunities for arbitray reasons. Since using force to get people to comply with these has been ruled out I favour using economic and social pressure, boycotts for instance, to “enforce” these ideals. Basically, Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty says his ideas are a political philosophy rather than a guide to ethics in general and what some of us on the libertarian-left are exploring is what general ethics are most likely to further the ends he wanted his political ethics to promote.