I don’t buy this. That’s like saying: “if pink dragons were valued, we would have them.” I mean, I understand Caplan’s point, but equality is nothing but a myth, a fetish; it simply does not exist in the social world. No “social program” or government mandate or social convention can ever make what is inherently unequal equal. They can only, at the very best, attempt to conceal the inequality.
Notice the scare quotes around the word equality!
Like all good libertarians, I think we realize attempts to instantiate egalitarianism are destined for ruin; however, I believe there can be some semblance of equality with more nonhierarchical social arrangements (e.g., imagine workers being able to fire managers).
Well it’s not planning, unless you want to define quite a lot of other things as planning to. When discussing economics or political philosophy you are discussing what means best promote what ends. I can’t remember if it was Mises or Hayek (it may have been both actually, it’s implicit throughout their work anyway) that pointed out that all economies and societies are planned, the question is “who by?”. I see no reason why the “planning” that goes into something like a boycott is any different than the “planning” that goes into a firm.
Yes I have, few opportunities/choices.
I’m just responding to you saying “only people like you…”
I’ve maintained throughout this debate that this is not the case, I am interested in the context in which the exchange takes place not the exchange itself. My views are completely compatible with the idea that every exchange is mutually beneficial (ex ante at least).
A situation in which people have more options is preferable to one in which they have few and I would argue that many of the best reasons underlying something like the NAP are reasons to support this too. If we care about people not having violent restrictions on achieving their goals we should care about other restrictions too. At any rate there doesn’t seem to be a rational reason for saying few choices are better than more so I don’t see what’s controversial about this. The solution IS the free market, we ARE the market, there’s no reason why collective action isn’t just another form of voluntary interaction. The free market requires property rights to function (my definition) not the absence of any criticism of other’s voluntary actions (your definition). There is no reason why me refusing to eat at a restaurant run by racists somehow undermines the market functioning, it IS the market functioning.
The right values? Good question. I’d say that the goal is increasing choices so any general principles that tend to help rather than hinder this. As for any values reflected in the market being the right ones, no, ever heard of GIGO? If people demand Nazism the market will eventually produce nazism (undermining itself of course), same with any rights-violations and the same with unethical cultural values. I can accept people will make decisions I don’t think are right when given the freedom to do so, that doesn’t mean I should be indifferent towards them, continue trading with them or not convince others to stop trading with them. Those are all choices we are free to make that don’t infringe upon anyone’s rights. The idea that “we”, “should” or “system” equals planning is beyond absurd unless you want to include literally any social organisation as planning.
…no, im not. I’m showing you can’t just dismiss an idea as “merely a preference” as though ethics had no impact on preference. No where have I said all preferences are ethical (that’s kinda my point…).
If this is what you mean by voluntarism then screw it, im more in favour of things like reason and liberty. The NAP prohibits the use of aggression, it doesn’t imply we have to be in favour of all voluntary choices people make. I would prefer a society with no aggression, making all interactions voluntary, which is sufficient to be a libertarian because that IS libertarianism. More importantly, this is an outcome I have arrived at voluntarily, on what grounds can you criticise me for doing so!? Is this not contrary to your own code of ethics? If you can make morally relevant distinctions between some voluntary actions then so can I.
In what world does not buying something not count as part of the market? Also see my point about morally relevant distinctions above, its not like i’m in favour of boycotting anyone for any reason. If someone has done something to warrant being boycotted then there is no inconsistency in saying it would be good to boycott them even if its bad to boycott people in general.
Here’s the problem: You (a) understand that value is entirely subjective
Yes.
exists solely at the individual level
Not exactly. Let me relate an anecdote; a friend of mine told a 9/11 joke, everyone laughed but one guy. He found it offensive, so then all of a sudden, it was offensive to everyone but me and the joke teller. Groupthink plays a large part in people’s decisions. Now, the ultimate choice’s and actions taken are on an individual level, but not exactly what people value as “right.”
but this only makes sense if you believe that value is categorical or objectively determined (which you correctly reject)
You misunderstand me. To the market, there is no right or wrong, there is efficient and/or valuable. I think you are thinking I am equating “right” with “value.” I value my privelaged position in the world being a US citizen, I in no way think it is right that only we have these privelages.
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
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.
I feel this is one of the major things holding back the austrian/an-cap communities in the mainstream; I constantly hear there proponents saying “you just don’t understand praxeology, austrian theory, an-cap,” etc to anyone who disagrees with them. Why is it that the only people who understand it are the one’s who agree with it? It sounds like religion, and not very trustworthy. Just some constructive criticism.
It’s not as if I’m hostile, if I am ignorant, enlighten me.
If you’re an anarchist, at least half of that is not consistent with anarchy
democratic (small d) != a state. It means control is popularized, in many hands rather than few. Syndacalism is basically the oldest established form of anarchism. Universal education, healthcare (and possibly subsistence) can be completely voluntary if people agree that they are rights.
Is this one legal/economic system or many?
What does this mean? Can you provide examples?
While not aggression, that is coercion is it not?
You guys aren’t exploring anything new. You’re walking a well worn path. The promotion of virtue, whether by the church, the state or the workers’ council is what creates tension and conflict in society.
While not aggression, that is coercion is it not?
What? No:
-
the act of compelling by force of authority
-
compulsion: using force to cause something to occur
Boycott is a consumer demand, a market mechanism. You either pacify the consumers, or you go out of business. No one is forcing you to do anything, unless you consider consuemer demand a form of coercion.
The promotion of virtue, whether by the church, the state or the workers’ council is what creates tension and conflict in society
If you’re a thief and I’m coming after you, and you’re tense… why should I care? Don’t be a thief!
The promotion of virtue also created capitalism, protects free expression and ended slavery so.. win
The promotion of virtue is the NAP. Nothing naturally says agression is bad, that’s a social norm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
“Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.”
Sure sounds like coercion to me. Again, is it ok to starve out someone who charges too much for a big mac? When is it ok to boycott someone? When they are white? Wealthy? Male? Successful? Christian? When they pay their employees a wage you don’t think is fair?
That is a childish and superficial conception of trade.
None of this makes any sense. It’s just rambling.
So it is planning then.
Yep, another leftist gem. Scarcity is a social deficiency.
If every exchange is mutually beneficial, then why does the context matter?
That’s a personal value judgment, it is not an objective fact.
You haven’t been able to explain what those other restrictions are, except preferences you don’t agree with, and scarcity, which is a fact of reality. Am I rite?
Methodological individualism please.
If the purpose of the collective is to remove choices from the marketplace, this isn’t even consistent with your own ideal of increasing choice. The solution to conditions you dont like in the market is to compete, not to regulate. Yes, there is a natural regulatory effect from consumer choice, but when this is wielded as a club, you no longer have a market. You have a state run by mob rule.
I cannot understand how you claim that you will act against racists (who discriminate) by discriminating, and think this is somehow coherent. You can stop discrimination by offering alternatives, but to starve out the racists is simply punishing people for their own values. THIS IS THE ROOT OF THE STATIST MENTALITY. Busy bodies and social planners who think they know what right and virtue is for everyone.
You’re treating all plans as equal. The state also has a plan. Your plan is similar to the state’s if not in means, then definitely in ends.
You can’t objectively prove ethics. Ethics are merely preferences. Nothing more.
They are not your choices. Because they are made voluntarily, they cannot be unethical. To take any other stance is to undermine the purpose of things being voluntary. You might as well come up with your set of righteous virtues and declare those the only acceptable ethical system, because that is what you are claiming to be working towards.
I’m not making a moral distinction. I am making a logical one. You can’t be for voluntarism if you undermine voluntarism. Very simple concept.
In what world does not selling something, or not selling something cheaply, not count as part of the market?
But what could they have done to warrant being boycotted, if they are acting with others in a voluntary fashion?
At what point will you tire of trying to square a circle?
It doesn’t hold us back at all.
But you don’t. And I am not going to subsidize your ignorance by teaching you what it is you are arguing about (from a position of ignorance). If you want to make good critiques, know your subject matter, or have the good sense to remain silent. I would prefer you were up to snuff and could offer some really tough challenges.
If someone doesn’t understand it, how can their opinion have any value whatsoever?
Comparing it to religion is dishonest and a mask for laziness on your part. Start learning if you want to participate in the higher level debates, or be happy to seek relevance through fart noises and quips.
Start in the MisesMedia YouTube channel. Pick something that looks interesting. Watch it. Then pick something else. Then if you want to read, start following the Mises blog and daily articles. We’re all much too busy to create a custom curriculum for you, and if you don’t have the initiative to teach yourself, then nothing any of us can do will bring you along. You have to want to know. You have to develop and indulge your curiosity.
Democracy is mob rule. It is not anarchy.
If people agree something is a right, doesn’t make it a right. If people believe the earth is flat, or that God lives in the heavens, doesn’t make it so. This is a logical fallacy, appealing to collective will. It’s nonsense, and a large part of why leftism and socialism in general are so silly. They are based on concepts which are incoherent.
Depends. Are polycentric law and free markets many different systems or one meta-system?
If it is then so is having to accept authoritarian working conditions or starve so as long as no one responds with unproportional coercion then all my crazy leftist views like choices are good and people shouldn’t starve if we can avoid it are still legitimate.
Doesn’t that depend on what we consider good and virtuous? If you believe co-operation is good then wouldn’t you describe attitudes that promote this end as virtues? Perhaps more wierdly, why would you consider attitudes that hinder the achievement of this end virtuous?
How can you be talking about polycentric law, if you won’t allow differences in notions of justice or free markets if you won’t allow particular forms of voluntary exchange?
But if someone accepts (what seems to you to be) authoritarian working conditions, then isn’t that their own choice, and not actually coercion? See, you want to be able to judge transactions as a third party. If I had a clearer mind, I could probably explain how this is part of the socialist calculation problem. You don’t have skin in the game but you want to be able to make value judgments. Your incentives aren’t aligned with the transaction and its costs.
That’s a question for YOU to answer. Why do you want to hinder voluntary co-operation and call it virtuous? I don’t want to stop ANY voluntary exchange. You do.
Also, what I consider good or virtuous are only my personal value preferences, not objective fact. Until you accept this, you will continue to come up with self-destructive conceptions of the common or general good.
Sure, but so are firms and everyone here is an advocate of planning along with Mises, Hayek, Menger etc. Surely this proves far too much if you think planning is a bad thing.
Artificial scarcity is.
Because it is the nature of the context, not the exchange, that i’m complaining about?
Yeah, so? Even if this is true I can still appeal to shared values. Almost everyone agrees with me, there’s no reason not to, so when making an argument along the lines of “if you believe X then Y…” then X may as well be an objective fact because the argument is still applicable to virtually everyone.
Preferences for restricting others choices and artificial scarcity, yes.
Do you want me to write down everyone’s names or does methodological individualism permit me to use shorthand?
Why, those are outcomes that each individual consumer arrived at voluntarily. What’s wrong with the consumer’s sense of ethics playing a role in their purchasing choices? Plus if preferences “wielded as a club” mean there is no longer a market then bigots destroy the market too. If we accept that we should promote the creation of more choices then the point of the boycott is primarily to incentivise this rather than take away the target’s choice. Also there are other things besides boycotts we could do, instead of refusing to eat at restaurants that discriminate based on race we could do things like set up restaurants that don’t. That’s surely a competitive, non-regulatory approach, to the problem so you should be fine with it. That means at best you’ve criticised a means rather than the end itself.
Simple. I think to discriminate without the existence of a morally relevant distinction is wrong, that in no way contradicts the belief that discriminating on the basis of a morally relevant distinction is fine or even admirable. Doesn’t imprisoning a murderer also involve punishing people for their own values? If the root of the statist mentality is the desire to arbitrarily control and interfere with other people’s lives (which is actually quite reasonable as a premise) then isn’t Long correct in his condemnation of business owners who like to impose all kinds of random regulations on their employees that aren’t actually neccessary for running a business?
I happen to disagree, but that’s a seperate issue. For the sake of this argument ethics will be based on inter-subjective agreements on preferences.
This blatently contradicts your above statement but nevermind. This seems like a slippery slope argument, we seem to have moved from me disagreeing with some voluntary choices to me declaring myself the sole authority in preference making very quickly and without much argument. I actually think the nature of morality and virtue is very individualised, most of my ideas on political/social philosophy are what values create the best framework within which people will be most able to pursue their own goods and virtues.
I can’t be for my conception of voluntarism (voluntary interactions are better than non-voluntary ones) if I undermine your conception of voluntarism (all voluntary choices are good choices)? Very simple, yet odd, concept derived from somewhere between a strawman and an equivocation. To be clear, I have no desire to promote what you describe as voluntarism. I’m happy with the non-aggression principle simply condemning aggression.
However my point was that in order for you to make this argument against me you undermine it yourself. To say I shouldn’t condemn any voluntary choice, boycott someone on the basis of this condemnation and try to convince others to join my boycott is in itself a condemndation of various voluntary choices.
In what world did I say it didn’t?
So are the people doing the boycotting, why are you complaining? If it’s their property and their preferences, why can’t they do what ever they want? Isn’t trying to stop them the root of the statist mentality?
rotflmao
Ok, this has been fun but I can’t continue to argue with people today who do not understand human action or markets.
There is a lot of red meat here if someone else wants to pick up where I left off. Otherwise I might come back later this week if I get time.
…
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap17a.asp
I guess he didn’t understand human action or market either. Seriously, just search “artificial scarcity” on mises.org and you get plenty of results.
Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way."
So, having a job is coercion? Sounds about right to me
That’s a joke obviously but, constantly at most jobs people have to do things they don’t want to do, under threat of losing their job. According to this definition, that’s coercion.
Again, is it ok to starve out someone who charges too much for a big mac?
I am starving him by not ordering his big mac? Or am I just choosing not to use his service? Or, are we now forced to patronize every business that exists, else we are coercing them to starvation?
When is it ok to boycott someone?
That’s subjective.
When they are white? Wealthy? Male? Successful? Christian? When they pay their employees a wage you don’t think is fair?
Sure, whatever. What, are you going to force people to patronize businesses they don’t want to?
That is a childish and superficial conception of trade.
Do you have anything substantial to add here, or just ad hominems? Explain to me how people getting together and deciding not to patronize a certain business is not consumer demand.
None of this makes any sense. It’s just rambling
Substantial critique. You are saying being non-aggressive is not a virtue?
If you want to make good critiques, know your subject matter, or have the good sense to remain silent.
Know my subject matter? Like that businesses have to meet consumer demands to stay in business?
If someone doesn’t understand it, how can their opinion have any value whatsoever?
^ appeal to ignorance fallacy
You have to want to know. You have to develop and indulge your curiosity
lol, that’s why I’m here. I read a little bit from here when I can, but the majority of my reading (as opposed to debate) is in books on physics, astronomy, anthropology, etc. It wasn’t until recently that I gave the austrian school any credence at all, why would I have read something I regarded as an utter fraud (I’ve since changed that stance after learning a bit more.)?
Democracy is mob rule
dēmokratía) “rule of the people”,[2] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) “people” and κράτος (Kratos) "power. Democracy doesn’t mean 50% + 1, per se. That is mob rule. I find both try to achieve self-governance, and that is what I’m all about.
If people agree something is a right, doesn’t make it a right.
And what makes something a right? What natural right to peace does one have that he does not have a natural right to violence? Rights are, and always will be a social contract.
Don’t believe me? Go try to homestead one of Chase’s dilapadated houses.
When they are white? Wealthy? Male? Successful? Christian? When they pay their employees a wage you don’t think is fair?
Just to be clear in my position; you are perfectly within your right to boycott poor, black, muslim females who pay their employees “too much.”